Why Eastern Canada Needs to Support Western Provinces and Reject the Government’s Energy Policies

There are currently about 400 different laws, regulations, taxes and other measures in Canada that serve as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. No one has a clue which of them are effective or useless or how much they are damaging our economy and reducing Canadians’ standard of living needlessly.

The federal Liberal government’s approach to energy policy has created problematic regional divisions across Canada. It’s time for the East to reject these crass politics and show greater support for the West.

Two recent court decisions — one at the Supreme Court and another at the Federal Court — have ruled against the federal government with respect to the Impact Assessment Act (the “No More Pipelines Bill”) and the single-use plastics ban. The courts found these laws to be unconstitutional as the federal government had intruded on provincial jurisdiction, among some other considerations such as the absurdity of declaring plastics “toxic.”

Around the same time, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced a punitive new emissions cap on the oil and gas industry at COP28, which was also attended by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. This was seemingly timed to embarrass Guilbeault’s provincial counterparts and the Canadian oil and gas executives in attendance.

Back in October, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a three-year exemption for home heating oil from the carbon tax. As heating oil is only used extensively in the Atlantic provinces, this was clearly an attempt to win back sharply declining Liberal support in that region. After Liberals claimed the carbon tax must be applied everywhere — in every industry and every region — this move served as a complete refutation of everything the Liberals had said before. It completely undermined their rationale for the carbon tax.

Meanwhile, countries around the world such as the United Kingdom and much of the European Union have been abandoning or significantly watering down their “net-zero” plans. Auto manufacturers are backing off production of electric vehicles (EVs) as they are not selling and all the lofty goals of the climate-crisis crowd are being questioned, as it has become clear the impact of these policies is hugely damaging to the economy and our standard of living.

For the trillions of dollars spent around the globe to attain the elusive net-zero target, very little has been achieved other than negative impacts on average citizens. Meanwhile, an elite class of “green” activists and government officials travel around the world first-class on the taxpayers’ dime, spewing much carbon in the process.

There are currently about 400 different laws, regulations, taxes and other measures in Canada that serve as greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. No one has a clue which of them are effective or useless or how much they are damaging our economy and reducing Canadians’ standard of living needlessly. This is because the Trudeau government never evaluates the effectiveness of its policies.

The Liberals first sold us the carbon tax as the only measure needed to reduce GHGs, arguing it was a market-based mechanism that would motivate consumers and businesses to make their own sensible decisions to reduce fossil fuel usage. We were also told by former environment minister Catherine McKenna the carbon tax would never exceed $50 a tonne, which we now know was just one of many Liberal bald-faced lies as the tax is slated to increase to at least $170/tonne by 2030.

Despite dishonest claims the carbon tax was the only measure needed, we have subsequently seen the so-called Clean Fuel Standard, the absurdly red-tape intensive Impact Assessment Act (which the Supreme Court has now overthrown), and Guilbeault’s recent emissions cap.

Interestingly, other parts of the economy emit similar amounts of GHGs as the oil and gas sector, but those industries are not subject to an emissions cap. Could it be because those industries are located in regions that tend to vote Liberal, unlike Alberta and Saskatchewan? Perish the thought!

Throughout all of the climate policy overkill, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have remained steadfast in opposing foolish federal government initiatives based on facts, science and constitutional law. All Canadians should know that Alberta in particular is a disproportionately significant contributor to the rest of Canada in many ways — equalization payments, contributions to programs such as CPP and Employment Insurance as well as personal and corporate taxation and royalty revenue from the oil and gas industry.

It was truly ironic that, in the context of the federal budget earlier this year, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland boasted that government revenues had come in higher than forecast. Yet the key source for this excess revenue was the oil and gas sector the Liberals are working hard to kill.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have been doing yeoman’s work defending the jurisdictional rights of all provinces and opposing the costly and unproductive federal government policies. At the same time, their success is boosting the economy of the whole country.

While Trudeau plays his destructive and divisive regional games — putting in place policies that benefit some parts of Canada while punishing others — all in the name of Liberal votes, the whole of Canada should call his bluff and support the leadership role that is being taken by the Prairie provinces.

The next federal election would be an ideal time to demonstrate that support.

Catherine Swift is president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Up Next

MP pay to increase between $8,000 and $16,000 in 2024

Don't Miss

British Columbia electric grid ‘at risk of shortfall’ as province limits natural gas, report warns

Todayville

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

‘There Will Be Very Serious Retaliation’: Two American Servicemen, Interpreter Killed In Syrian Attack

Health / 48 mins ago

The Data That Doesn’t Exist

Business / 49 mins ago

Fuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top

Automotive

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”

And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.

So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.

But is that true?

Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.

Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.

Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.

However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.

Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.

So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Energy

Canada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Deborah Jaremko

A strategic gateway to the world

Tucked into the north coast of B.C. is the deepest natural harbour in North America and the port with the shortest travel times to Asia.

With growing capacity for exports including agricultural products, lumber, plastic pellets, propane and butane, it’s no wonder the Port of Prince Rupert often comes up as a potential new global gateway for oil from Alberta, said CEO Shaun Stevenson.

Thanks to its location and natural advantages, the port can efficiently move a wide range of commodities, he said.

That could include oil, if not for the federal tanker ban in northern B.C.’s coastal waters.

*The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority*

“Notwithstanding the moratorium that was put in place, when you look at the attributes of the Port of Prince Rupert, there’s arguably no safer place in Canada to do it,” Stevenson said.

“I think that speaks to the need to build trust and confidence that it can be done safely, with protection of environmental risks. You can’t talk about the economic opportunity before you address safety and environmental protection.”

Safe transit at Prince Rupert

About a 16-hour drive from Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert’s terminals are one to two sailing days closer to Asia than other West Coast ports.

The entrance to the inner harbour is wider than the length of three Canadian football fields.

The water is 35 metres deep — about the height of a 10-storey building — compared to 22 metres at Los Angeles and 16 metres at Seattle.

Shipmasters spend two hours navigating into the port with local pilot guides, compared to four hours at Vancouver and eight at Seattle.

“We’ve got wide open, very simple shipping lanes. It’s not moving through complex navigational channels into the site,” Stevenson said.

A port on the rise

The Prince Rupert Port Authority says it has entered a new era of expansion, strengthening Canada’s economic security.

The port estimates it anchors about $60 billion of Canada’s annual global trade today. Even without adding oil exports, Stevenson said that figure could grow to $100 billion.

“We need better access to the huge and growing Asian market,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Prince Rupert seems purpose-built for that.”

Roughly $3 billion in new infrastructure is already taking shape, including the $750 million rail-to-container CANXPORT transloading complex for bulk commodities like specialty agricultural products, lumber and plastic pellets.

*The Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, Canada’s first marine propane export terminal, started shipping in May 2019. Photo courtesy AltaGas Ltd.*

Canadian propane goes global

A centrepiece of new development is the $1.35-billion Ridley Energy Export Facility — the port’s third propane terminal since 2019.

“Prince Rupert is already emerging as a globally significant gateway for propane exports to Asia,” Exner-Pirot said.

Thanks to shipments from Prince Rupert, Canadian propane – primarily from Alberta – has gone global, no longer confined to U.S. markets.

More than 45 per cent of Canada’s propane exports now reach destinations outside the United States, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.

“Twenty-five per cent of Japan’s propane imports come through Prince Rupert, and just shy of 15 per cent of Korea’s imports. It’s created a lift on every barrel produced in Western Canada,” Stevenson said.

“When we look at natural gas liquids, propane and butane, we think there’s an opportunity for Canada via Prince Rupert becoming the trading benchmark for the Asia-Pacific region.”

That would give Canadian production an enduring competitive advantage when serving key markets in Asia, he said.

Deep connection to Alberta

The Port of Prince Rupert has been a key export hub for Alberta commodities for more than four decades.

Through the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the province invested $134 million — roughly half the total cost — to build the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal, which opened in 1985.

The largest grain terminal on the West Coast, it primarily handles wheat, barley, and canola from the prairies.

*The Prince Rupert Grain Terminal. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority*

Today, the connection to Alberta remains strong.

In 2022, $3.8 billion worth of Alberta exports — mainly propane, agricultural products and wood pulp — were shipped through the Port of Prince Rupert, according to the province’s Ministry of Transportation and Economic Corridors.

In 2024, Alberta awarded a $250,000 grant to the Prince Rupert Port Authority to lead discussions on expanding transportation links with the province’s Industrial Heartland region near Edmonton.

Handling some of the world’s biggest vessels

The Port of Prince Rupert could safely handle oil tankers, including Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), Stevenson said.

“We would have the capacity both in water depth and access and egress to the port that could handle Aframax, Suezmax and even VLCCs,” he said.

“We don’t have terminal capacity to handle oil at this point, but there’s certainly terminal capacities within the port complex that could be either expanded or diversified in their capability.”

Market access lessons from TMX

Like propane, Canada’s oil exports have gained traction in Asia, thanks to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline and the Westridge Marine Terminal near Vancouver — about 1,600 kilometres south of Prince Rupert, where there is no oil tanker ban.

The Trans Mountain expansion project included the largest expansion of ocean oil spill response in Canadian history, doubling capacity of the West Coast Marine Response Corporation.

*The K.J. Gardner is the largest-ever spill response vessel in Canada. Photo courtesy Western Canada Marine Response Corporation*

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) reports that Canadian oil exports to Asia more than tripled after the expanded pipeline and terminal went into service in May 2024.

As a result, the price for Canadian oil has gone up.

The gap between Western Canadian Select (WCS) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) has narrowed to about $12 per barrel this year, compared to $19 per barrel in 2023, according to GLJ Petroleum Consultants.

Each additional dollar earned per barrel adds about $280 million in annual government royalties and tax revenues, according to economist Peter Tertzakian.