Connect with us

Economy

Red tape and uncertainty hurting oil and gas investment in Canada

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Investment in the sector fell from $76 billion in 2014 to $35 billion in 2023

Global oil demand is set to reach record highs this year, with growth in natural gas demand on the horizon—and Canada’s oil and gas sector could be a major source of clean and reliable energy, if policymakers help make the country a more desirable place to invest.

While investment in Canada’s oil and gas industry has increased steadily since 2020, it remains far below record levels achieved in 2014. In fact, investment in the sector fell from $76 billion in 2014 to $35 billion in 2023. Less investment means less money to develop new energy projects, infrastructure and technologies, and consequently fewer jobs and less economic opportunity for Canadians. While many factors are at play, investors point to Canada’s policy barriers as major deterrents to investment.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which surveys oil and gas investors on the investment attractiveness of 17 energy-producing jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, Wyoming remains the top jurisdiction in terms of investment attractiveness followed by North Dakota and Saskatchewan, the only Canadian jurisdiction ranking in the top five.

Alberta, Canada’s largest oil and natural gas producer, ranked 9th while Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia are among the least attractive jurisdictions, ranking 14th and 15th respectively. Put simply, with the exception of Saskatchewan, Canadian provinces are less attractive for oil and gas investment compared to U.S. states.

So, what policy factors hinder Canada’s oil and gas sector?

In short, uncertainty about environmental regulations, disputed land claims, regulatory duplication and inconsistencies, the cost of regulatory compliance and barriers to regulatory enforcement.

More specifically, according to the survey, 100 per cent of respondents for Newfoundland and Labrador, 93 per cent for British Columbia and 50 per cent for Alberta indicated that uncertainty concerning environmental regulations was a deterrent for investment compared to only 6 per cent for Oklahoma and 11 per cent for Texas. Overall, on average, 68 per cent of respondents were deterred by the uncertainty concerning environmental regulations in Canada compared to 41 per cent in the U.S.

This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment should come as no surprise. In 2019, the Trudeau government enacted Bill C-69, which introduced subjective criteria including the “social impact” of energy investment and its “gender implications,” into the evaluation process of major energy projects, causing massive uncertainty about the development of new infrastructure projects. While the Supreme Court declared this bill unconstitutional, the energy sector still grapples with uncertainty as it awaits new legislation.

Similarly, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-48, which bans large oil tankers carrying crude oil or persistent oils (including upgraded bitumen and fuel oils) off B.C.’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets. The Trudeau government also created an arbitrary cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the oil and gas industry (while all other GHG emissions were exempt) and introduced new rules on methane emissions. Energy industry leaders have also expressed concern over Ottawa’s clean-fuel standards, which mandate that firms selling gas, liquid and solid fuels reduce the amount of GHG generated per unit of fuel they sell.

Clearly, Ottawa’s aggressive regulations are hurting Canada’s oil and gas industry. In light of the vital role the energy sector plays in the economy, including job creation and government revenues, the federal government should eliminate barriers and implement reform to enhance the sector’s appeal to investors. Otherwise, Canada will keep losing opportunities to the more attractive investment climate south of the border.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency

A Fed-Controlled Digital Dollar Could Mean The End Of Freedom

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE

Central bank digital currencies (CBDC) are a threat to liberty.

Sixty-eight countries, including communist China, are exploring the possibility of issuing a CBDC. CBDCs are essentially government-sponsored cryptocurrencies pegged to the value of a national currency that allow for real-time payments.

The European Union has a digital euro CBDC pilot program, and all BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are working to stand up CBDCs. China’s CBDC pilot, the largest in the world, is being used by 260 million individuals.

While faster payments are a positive for markets and economic growth, CBDCs present major risks. They would allow governments to meticulously monitor transactions made by their citizens, and CBDCs open the door for government planners to limit the types of transactions made.

Power corrupts, and no government should have that level of control. No wonder China and other authoritarian regimes around the globe are eager to implement a CBDC.

Governments that issue CBDCs could prohibit the sale or purchase of certain goods or services and more easily freeze and seize assets. But that would never happen in the U.S, right? Don’t be so certain.

Take a look at recent events in our neighbor to the north. The government of Canada shut down bank accounts and froze assets of Canadian citizens protesting the COVID-19 vaccination in Ottawa during the winter of 2022. With a CBDC, authoritarian actions of this kind would be even easier to execute.

To make matters worse, the issuance of a CBDC by the Federal Reserve, the U.S.’s central bank, has the potential to undermine the existing banking system. The exact ramifications of what a CBDC would mean to the banking sector are unclear, but such a development could position the Fed to offer banking services directly to American businesses and citizens, undercutting the community banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions that currently serve main street effectively.

The Fed needs to stay out of the banking business – it’s having a hard enough time achieving its core mission of getting inflation under control. A CBDC would open the door for the Fed to compete with the private sector, undercutting economic growth, innovation, and financial access in the process.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell has testified before Congress that America’s central bank would not issue a CBDC without express approval from Congress, but the Fed has studied CBDCs extensively.

For consumers who want the ability to make real-time payments internationally, CBDCs are not the answer. Stablecoins offer a commonsense private sector solution to this market demand.

Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency pegged to the value of a certain asset, such as the U.S. dollar. If Congress gets its act together and creates a regulatory framework for stablecoins, many banks, cryptocurrency firms, and other innovative private sector entities would issue dollar-pegged stablecoins. These financial instruments would allow for instantaneous cross-border payments for market participants who find that service of value.

Stablecoins are the free market response to CBDCs. They offer the benefits associated with the technology without the privacy risk, and they would likely enhance, not disrupt, the existing banking sector.

Representatives Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and French Hill (R-Ark.) have done yeoman’s work advancing quality, commonsense stablecoin legislation in the House of Representatives, and the Senate needs to move forward on this issue.

Inaction by Congress will force innovators overseas and put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. It would also help the Fed boost the case for a CBDC that will undermine liberty and open the door to government oppression.

Tommy Tuberville is a Republican from Alabama serving in the United States Senate. He is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which plays a key role in overseeing emerging digital assets markets.

 

Continue Reading

Business

Maxime Bernier warns Canadians of Trudeau’s plan to implement WEF global tax regime

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

If ‘the idea of a global corporate tax becomes normalized, we may eventually see other agreements to impose other taxes, on carbon, airfare, or who knows what.’

People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier has warned that the Liberal government’s push for World Economic Forum (WEF) “Global Tax” scheme should concern Canadians. 

According to Canada’s 2024 Budget, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is working to pass the WEF’s Global Minimum Tax Act which will mandate that multinational companies pay a minimum tax rate of 15 percent.

“Canadians should be very concerned, for several reasons,” People’s Party leader Maxime Bernier told LifeSiteNews, in response to the proposal.

“First, the WEF is a globalist institution that actively campaigns for the establishment of a world government and for the adoption of socialist, authoritarian, and reactionary anti-growth policies across the world,” he explained. “Any proposal they make is very likely not in the interest of Canadians.” 

“Second, this minimum tax on multinationals is a way to insidiously build support for a global harmonized tax regime that will lower tax competition between countries, and therefore ensure that taxes can stay higher everywhere,” he continued.  

“Canada reaffirms its commitment to Pillar One and will continue to work diligently to finalize a multilateral treaty and bring the new system into effect as soon as a critical mass of countries is willing,” the budget stated.  

“However, in view of consecutive delays internationally in implementing the multilateral treaty, Canada cannot continue to wait before taking action,” it continued.   

The Trudeau government also announced it would be implementing “Pillar Two,” which aims to establish a global minimum corporate tax rate. 

“Pillar Two of the plan is a global minimum tax regime to ensure that large multinational corporations are subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15 per cent on their profits wherever they do business,” the Liberals explained.  

According to the budget, Trudeau promised to introduce the new legislation in Parliament soon.  

The global tax was first proposed by Secretary-General of Amnesty International at the WEF meeting in Davos this January.  

“Let’s start taxing carbon…[but] not just carbon tax,” the head of Amnesty International, Agnes Callamard, said during a panel discussion.  

According to the WEF, the tax, proposed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “imposes a minimum effective rate of 15% on corporate profits.”  

Following the meeting, 140 countries, including Canada, pledged to impose the tax.  

While a tax on large corporations does not necessarily sound unethical, implementing a global tax appears to be just the first step in the WEF’s globalization plan by undermining the sovereignty of nations.  

While Bernier explained that multinationals should pay taxes, he argued it is the role of each country to determine what those taxes are.   

“The logic of pressuring countries with low taxes to raise them is that it lessens fiscal competition and makes it then less costly and easier for countries with higher taxes to keep them high,” he said.  

Bernier pointed out that competition is good since it “forces everyone to get better and more efficient.” 

“In the end, we all end up paying for taxes, even those paid by multinationals, as it causes them to raise prices and transfer the cost of taxes to consumers,” he warned.  

Bernier further explained that the new tax could be a first step “toward the implementation of global taxes by the United Nations or some of its agencies, with the cooperation of globalist governments like Trudeau’s willing to cede our sovereignty to these international organizations.”   

“Just like ‘temporary taxes’ (like the income tax adopted during WWI) tend to become permanent, ‘minimum taxes’ tend to be raised,” he warned. “And if the idea of a global corporate tax becomes normalized, we may eventually see other agreements to impose other taxes, on carbon, airfare, or who knows what.”   

Trudeau’s involvement in the WEF’s plan should not be surprising considering his current environmental goals – which are in lockstep with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – which include the phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.    

The reduction and eventual elimination of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum – the aforementioned group famous for its socialist “Great Reset” agenda – in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.     

Continue Reading

Trending

X