Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Jagmeet Singh’s mythematical numbers

Published

5 minute read

From Resource Works

Singh… somehow has failed to correct his original post.

National NDP leader Jagmeet Singh earns a new mark for his business mathematics — though his subject is better called “mythematics.” He gets an F for his declaration that Cenovus Energy had record profits of $37 billion in 2023.

He began with this post on X (Twitter): “Last year, Cenovus raked in $37 billion in profits. And a whopping $64 billion in 2022. Big Oil is making record profits, burning the planet AND asking for massive public handouts. It’s time to end the free ride for oil and gas.”

Readers quickly hit back: “Per Cenovus’ own 2023 Financial Year report, profits were $4.11 billion CAD, down 36% from 2022. Mr. Singh conflates revenue (which includes no expenses, government fees, or taxes) with profit.”

Some pointed to Cenovus’s own figures:
Revenue: CA$52.2b (down 22% from FY 2022)
Net income: CA$4.11b (down 36% from FY 2022)
Profit margin: 7.9% (down from 9.6% in FY 2022)

Heather Exner-Pirot of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and special adviser to the Business Council of Canada, added: “Not sure why Singh would just make up numbers? Anyone can look up their annual financial results. There was no $37 billion in profits. Although if they did have that kind of year, it would be great for Albertan royalties and Canadian business taxes.”

She included a link to Cenovus’s 2023 annual report. Singh, though, somehow has failed to correct his original post.

The NDP leader’s earnings from Parliament now run at $271,700 a year. But under his strange “mythematics,” as applied to Cenovus, he presumably has no expenses and pays no taxes, so that $271,700 is all “profit.” Nice…

Pity that the average Canadian, whose gross income in 2023 was $64,850, has to pay out living expenses such as accommodation, food, and taxes to assorted governments. That’s realistic mathematics, not mythematics.

And that average Canadian does not have Parliament to pick up such expenses as Singh racked up from April 1 to June 30: travel, $28,304; hospitality, $3,319; and contract, $38,053.

In his support for the Trudeau Liberal government, we see Singh’s “mythematics” at work again. As the small-c conservative Fraser Institute points out: the Trudeau government’s recent fiscal record includes unprecedented levels of spending and debt.

“The Trudeau government has consistently spent at record-high levels before, during, and after COVID. In fact, Prime Minister Trudeau is on track to record the seven-highest years of per-person spending in Canadian history between 2018 and 2024. Inflation-adjusted spending (excluding debt interest costs) is expected to reach $11,856 per person this year—10.2% higher than during the 2008-09 financial crisis and 28.7% higher than during the peak of the Second World War.

“Consequently, the Trudeau government has posted 10 consecutive deficits since taking office. The projected deficit in 2024/25 is a whopping $39.8 billion. This string of deficits has spurred a dramatic increase in federal debt. From 2014/15 (Prime Minister Harper’s last full year), total federal debt is expected to have nearly doubled to $2.1 trillion. To make matters worse, the government plans to run more deficits until at least 2028/29, and total debt could rise by an additional $400.1 billion by March 2029.

“Indeed, due to reckless decisions, the Trudeau government is on track to record the five-highest years of per-person debt (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history between 2020 and 2024. As of 2024, Ottawa’s debt equals $51,467 per Canadian—12.3% more than in 1995 when Canada reached a near-debt crisis.”

The New Democrats back the Liberals on confidence and budgetary votes in Parliament, in exchange for concessions on key political priorities. When it came to the current budget, the government included things Singh’s NDP supports, such as funding for pharmacare and a national school lunch program.

But Singh withheld support for the budget for two weeks, saying it didn’t provide adequate funding for a new disability benefit or for Indigenous communities. In the end, he did vote for the budget, and thus those fiscal issues raised by the Fraser Institute. Singh did not disclose if he has been offered Liberal solutions down the road to his concerns.

All a question of “mythematics,” we assume.

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

Alberta

Ottawa’s emissions policies will impose huge costs on Albertans

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

The path Trudeau is forcing us down leads to a much poorer economy (completely cratering Canada’s energy industry while making everything more expensive) and negative environmental benefit (that’s right, it’s worse as developing nations use the energy that’s cheapest). So maybe it’s time to scrap the tax.

The federal NDP recently ended its support for the consumer carbon tax citing its significant cost to everyday Canadians. But Canada’s costly climate change policies extend beyond the carbon tax. Indeed, the Trudeau government has introduced numerous policies in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which impose major costs on Albertans.

The consumer carbon tax is perhaps the most widely known GHG reduction policy, which places a price on carbon (currently at $80 per tonne) and is set to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030. However, the Trudeau government has also imposed other regulations and mandates, including clean fuel regulations, electric vehicle mandates, the phase-out of coal-based electrical generation and building efficiency mandates.

The costs? According to a recent study, these GHG policies will shrink the Alberta economy (as measured by GDP) by an estimated 6.0 per cent by 2030. And employment in the province is expected to decline by 0.9 per cent. To put these figures into perspective, a 6.0 per cent contraction in 2024 would have shrunk the provincial economy by $27.7 billion, while a 0.9 per cent decrease in employment would have meant a loss of approximately 22,837 jobs (based on data for August 2024).

While these policies are expected to reduce GHG emissions, they fall short of meeting the government’s national GHG reduction targets. As a result, further economic pain will be required if the federal government implements additional measures to further reduce GHGs emissions.

These findings echo other studies that measure the effects of various climate change policies. According to a report by Deloitte, for instance, Trudeau’s policy to cap GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector (to 35 to 38 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030) will lead to less investment, nearly 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in economic output (i.e. GDP) among the provinces by 2040. Unsurprisingly, Alberta is projected to be the hardest hit province.

And here’s the kicker—these huge economic costs come with little to no actual environmental benefit. Even if Canada shut down its entire oil and gas sector by 2030, thus eliminating all GHG emissions from the sector, the resulting reduction would equal four-tenths of 1 per cent of global emissions, which would have an undetectable impact on the climate. Meanwhile, as demand for fossil fuels continues to increase, constraining oil and gas production and exports in Canada merely shifts production to other countries, which have lower environmental and human rights standards such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

The Trudeau government’s climate change regulations are imposing huge costs on Albertans with little to no actual environmental benefit. While support for some of these policies—particularly the consumer carbon tax—is waning, federal policymakers should seriously rethink numerous other regulations.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden-Harris Admin Over Alleged Cover-Up Behind Major Fossil Fuel Crackdown

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Nick Pope

Forty-five GOP lawmakers are demanding answers from the Department of Energy (DOE) after a government watchdog group accused the agency of covering up a key study that would have interfered with one of the Biden-Harris administration’s most aggressive crackdowns on fossil fuels.

The lawmakers wrote to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Thursday to address a watchdog’s allegations that her agency conducted or drafted — and then quietly buried — a study on the emissions impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in 2023 before pausing approvals for certain LNG export terminals in January on the grounds that the agency needed to conduct such a review. Government Accountability and Oversight (GAO), the watchdog making the allegations, is suing the agency under public records law to obtain the thousands of pages DOE concedes may fit GAO’s specific request searching for the 2023 study that the agency allegedly buried because it was producing politically inconvenient conclusions, as first reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The Biden-Harris Administration’s attempt to conceal its findings on liquefied natural gas impacts is troubling. Despite evidence that U.S. LNG benefits both the economy and global energy security, the Department of Energy has imposed an indefinite ban on LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries without legal justification,” Republican Texas Rep. August Pfluger, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “The lack of transparency from DOE on existing studies, as well as the motivation behind the ongoing study, is unacceptable. The American people deserve accountability on the decision-making process surrounding our energy future.”

DOE Letter re: LNG studies, GAO accusations by Nick Pope on Scribd

If GAO’s allegations are ultimately substantiated, the Biden-Harris administration effectively misled the public in an election year to set up a policy that hurts American geopolitical interests and disincentivizes investment in major energy projects. However, the deep-pocketed environmentalist lobby aligning with Democrats in the 2024 election cycle celebrated the policy.

The lawmakers’ letter specifically asks Granholm to clarify whether the agency conducted any analysis of LNG exports’ emissions impacts before the Jan. 26 announcement of the freeze on approvals for LNG export terminals seeking to ship gas to non-free trade agreement (FTA) countries. The legislators also asked Granholm to detail whether top DOE officials or White House personnel ever received updates about such an analysis, even if preliminary, in the first ten months of 2023, as well as whether the agency still intends to publish its findings in January 2025.

“DOE is in receipt of this letter and is reviewing it,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “DOE’s process to update the analyses that informs its review of applications to authorize exports of US natural gas to non-free trade agreement countries is well underway. When the updated analyses are ready, we will publish them for the public to review and provide comment.”

The lawmakers gave Granholm until Nov. 8 to respond to their inquiry. Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Lance Gooden of Texas and Buddy Carter of Georgia joined Pfluger as signatories, among others.

Notably, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee sent its own letter to Granholm on Wednesday demanding answers about the same exact issue.

Continue Reading

Trending

X