Alberta
The Conventional Energy Sector and Pipelines Will Feature Prominently in Alberta’s Referendum Debate
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.
From the Fraser Institute
Recently, amid the backdrop of a teacher strike, an Alberta high school teacher began collecting signatures for a petition to end government funding of independent schools in the province. If she gets enough people to sign—10 per cent of the number of Albertans who voted in the last provincial election—Elections Alberta will consider launching a referendum about the issue.
In other words, the critical funding many Alberta families rely on for their children’s educational needs may be in jeopardy.
In Alberta, the provincial government partially funds independent schools and charter schools. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), whose members are currently on strike, opposes government funding of independent and charter schools.
But kids are not one-size-fits-all, and schools should reflect that reality, particularly in light of today’s increasing classroom complexity where different kids have different needs. Unlike government-run public schools, independent schools and charter schools have the flexibility to innovate and find creative ways to help students thrive.
And things aren’t going very well for all kids or teachers in government-run pubic school classrooms. According to the ATA, 93 per cent of teachers report encountering some form of aggression or violence at school, most often from students. Additionally, 85 per cent of unionized teachers face an increase in cognitive, social/emotional and behavioural issues in their classrooms. In 2020, one-quarter of students in Edmonton’s government-run public schools were just learning English, and immigration to Canada—and Alberta especially—has exploded since then. It’s not easy to teach a classroom of kids where a significant proportion do not speak English, many have learning disabilities or exceptional needs, and a few have severe behavioural problems.
Not surprisingly, demand for independent schools in Alberta is growing because many of these schools are designed for students with special needs, Autism, severe learning disabilities and ADHD. Some independent schools cater to students just learning English while others offer cultural focuses, expanded outdoor time, gifted learning and much more.
Which takes us back to the new petition—yet the latest attempt to defund independent schools in Alberta.
Wealthy families will always have school choice. But if the Alberta government wants low-income and middle-class kids to have the ability to access schools that fit them, too, it’s crucial to maintain—or better yet, increase—its support for independent and charter schools.
Consider a fictional Alberta family: the Millers. Their daughter, Lucy, is struggling at her local government-run public school. Her reading is below grade level and she’s being bullied. It’s affecting her self-esteem, her sleep and her overall wellbeing. The Millers pay their taxes. They don’t take vacations, they rent, and they haven’t upgraded their cars in many years. They can’t afford to pay full tuition for Lucy to attend an independent school that offers the approach to education she needs to succeed. However, because the Alberta government partially funds independent schools—which essentially means a portion of the Miller family’s tax dollars follow Lucy to the school of their choice—they’re able to afford the tuition.
The familiar refrain from opponents is that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for independent school tuition. But in fact, if you’re concerned about taxpayers, you should encourage school choice. If Lucy attends a government-run public school, taxpayers pay 100 per cent of her education costs. But if she attends an independent or charter school, taxpayers only pay a portion of the costs while her parents pay the rest. That’s why research shows that school choice saves tax dollars.
If you’re a parent with a child in a government-run public school in Alberta, you now must deal with another teacher strike. If you have a child in an independent or charter school, however, it’s business as usual. If Albertans are ever asked to vote on whether or not to end government funding for independent schools, they should remember that students are the most important stakeholder in education. And providing parents more choices in education is the solution, not the problem.
Paige MacPherson
Construction of an oil sands SAGD production well pad in northern Alberta. Photo supplied to the Canadian Energy Centre
From the Canadian Energy Centre
The facts about one of Canada’s biggest industries
Alberta’s oil sands sector is one of Canada’s most important industries — and also one of its most misunderstood.
Here are five common myths, and the facts behind them.
Myth: Oil sands emissions are unchecked
Steam generators at a SAGD oil sands production site in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Cenovus Energy
Reality: Oil sands emissions are strictly regulated and monitored. Producers are making improvements through innovation and efficiency.
The sector’s average emissions per barrel – already on par with the average oil consumed in the United States, according to S&P Global – continue to go down.
The province reports that oil sands emissions per barrel declined by 26 per cent per barrel from 2012 to 2023. At the same time, production increased by 96 per cent.
Analysts with S&P Global call this a “structural change” for the industry where production growth is beginning to rise faster than emissions growth.
The firm continues to anticipate a decrease in total oil sands emissions within the next few years.
The Pathways Alliance — companies representing about 95 per cent of oil sands activity — aims to significantly cut emissions from production through a major carbon capture and storage (CCS) project and other innovations.
Myth: There is no demand for oil sands production
Expanded export capacity at the Trans Mountain Westridge Terminal. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation
Reality: Demand for Canadian oil – which primarily comes from the oil sands – is strong and rising.
Today, America imports more than 80 per cent more oil from Canada than it did in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
New global customers also now have access to Canadian oil thanks to the opening of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in 2024.
Exports to countries outside the U.S. increased by 180 per cent since the project went into service, reaching a record 525,000 barrels per day in July 2025, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.
The world’s appetite for oil keeps growing — and it’s not stopping anytime soon.
According to the latest EIA projections, the world will consume about 120 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum liquids in 2050, up from about 104 million barrels per day today.
Myth: Oil sands projects cost too much
Heavy haulers at an oil sands mining operation in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Suncor Energy
Reality: Operating oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-cost oil in North America, according to Enverus Intelligence Research.
Unlike U.S. shale plays, oil sands production is a long-life, low-decline “manufacturing” process without the treadmill of ongoing investment in new drilling, according to BMO Capital Markets.
Vast oil sands reserves support mining projects with no drilling, and the standard SAGD drilling method involves about 60 per cent fewer wells than the average shale play, BMO says.
After initial investment, Enverus says oil sands projects typically break even at less than US$50 per barrel WTI.
Myth: Indigenous communities don’t support the oil sands
Chief Greg Desjarlais of Frog Lake First Nation signs an agreement in September 2022 whereby 23 First Nations and Métis communities in Alberta acquired an 11.57 per cent ownership interest in seven Enbridge-operated oil sands pipelines for approximately $1 billion. Photo courtesy Enbridge
Reality: Indigenous communities play an important role in the oil sands sector through community agreements, business contracts and, increasingly, project equity ownership.
Oil sands producers spent an average of $1.8 billion per year with 180 Indigenous-affiliated vendors between 2021 and 2023, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
Indigenous communities are now owners of key projects that support the oil sands, including Suncor Energy’s East Tank Farm (49 per cent owned by two communities); the Northern Courier pipeline system (14 per cent owned by eight communities); and the Athabasca Trunkline, seven operating Enbridge oil sands pipelines (~12 per cent owned by 23 communities).
These partnerships strengthen Indigenous communities with long-term revenue, helping build economic reconciliation.
Myth: Oil sands development only benefits people in Alberta
The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) on Bay St. Getty Images photo
Reality: Oil sands development benefits Canadians across the country through reliable energy supply, jobs, taxes and government revenues that help pay for services like roads, schools and hospitals.
The sector has contributed approximately $1 trillion to the Canadian economy over the past 25 years, according to analysis by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI).
That reflects total direct spending — including capital investment, operating costs, taxes and royalties — not profits or dividends for shareholders.
More than 2,300 companies outside of Alberta have had direct business with the oilsands, including over 1,300 in Ontario and almost 600 in Quebec, MLI said.
Energy products are by far Canada’s largest export, representing $196 billion, or about one-quarter of Canada’s total trade in 2024, according to Statistics Canada.
Led by the oil sands, Canada’s energy sector directly or indirectly employs more than 445,000 people across the country, according to Natural Resources Canada.
The City of Red Deer’s Financial Troubles: Here Are The Candidates I Am Voting For And Why.
UN, Gates Foundation push for digital ID across 50 nations by 2028
Click here to help choose Alberta’s new licence plate design
The Trials of Liberty: What the Truckers Taught Canada About Power and Protest
-
Alberta2 days ago
Busting five myths about the Alberta oil sands
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoOttawa Should Think Twice Before Taxing Churches
-
Business2 days agoUS government buys stakes in two Canadian mining companies
-
Health1 day agoNew report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights
-
Energy1 day agoMinus Forty and the Myth of Easy Energy
-
Business12 hours agoEmission regulations harm Canadians in exchange for no environmental benefit
-
Business11 hours agoQuebecers want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun confiscation
-
Courageous Discourse9 hours agoNo Exit Wound – EITHER there was a very public “miracle” OR Charlie Kirk’s murder is not as it appears