From EnergyNow.Ca

By Jim Warren

On the bright side, at least President Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian oil and gas, might have alerted some Central Canadians to the critical importance of oil and gas to the national economy. Trump’s tariff pronouncements may also have forced the Laurentian Elite to rethink the wisdom of allowing anarchy to reign in our immigration system and border management.

Any nation hoping to be a serious player in the areas of international trade and diplomacy needs to meet several critical criteria. Without them a country can have difficulty marketing its goods and services to the world and in retaining meaningful economic and political sovereignty. One of the key criteria is for a country to have a good measure of control over its borders. But there are other elements critical to having effective sovereignty and independence. Having access to versatile, readily transportable energy commodities like oil and gas is one of those essentials. Accordingly, oil and gas are considered strategically important industries.

Lacking any of the major building blocks of strategic economic sovereignty, like the steel and aluminum industries and a thriving manufacturing sector, as well as highly developed transportation sector and the energy industries needed to support all the other sectors can leave a country vulnerable to domination by others. The vulnerabilities can lead to economic and political crises for a country during trade wars, international disputes leading to trade sanctions and embargoes, shooting wars and big natural disasters. A lack of strong trade and military alliances can make matters even worse.

It’s not like there wasn’t a mountain of evidence underlining the strategic importance of oil and gas in the last few years. How smart was it for Angela Merkel to allow Russia, a state run by a psychopath and his team of criminal oligarchs, to control a major portion of its energy supplies? The Ukraine gets it. After its war with Russia began, the Ukrainian government allowed Russian gas to be piped across its territory to Eastern Europe for nearly two years. This was because they realized messing with a commodity critical to bordering states such as Hungary, Slovakia and Romania was politically hazardous.

It is true that a country can still have a thriving economy even if it is missing one or two items from the basket of strategically important industries. Singapore, for example, needs to import fossil fuel but is still considered one of Southeast Asia’s economic tigers. But this is only possible because Singapore is so good at most everything else. It has several other economic engines that perform exceptionally well.

Looking back several decades reminds us that Japan risked entering a World War to obtain the petroleum they needed. To get it, the Japanese concluded they needed to conquer parts of Indonesia. (Similarly they wanted Southeast Asia for its rubber.) They knew these were actions the US wouldn’t tolerate, but they decided they had to do them anyway.

While we’re on the topic of World War II, it is instructive to recall Hitler fought it with one hand tied behind his back. Germany had no oil of its own and gasoline refined from coal and the oil available from their Romanian ally were never enough. That’s why the German’s placed such great hopes in capturing Russia’s Caspian oil fields in 1943. Similarly, Hitler invaded Norway to ensure access to Swedish iron ore—another strategic commodity Germany lacked.

Canada’s oil revenues along with the taxes and royalties collected from those revenues are derived almost entirely from the oil we export to the US. Our export revenues for 2022, following the worst of the covid years, were $123 billion. They accounted for 15.8% of all Canada’s exports and 6.6% of GDP. The following year saw exceptionally high oil prices globally. That year the value of oil Canada’s oil production hit $139 billion and accounted for 7.1% of GDP. Pull even half of those revenues out of the Canadian economy for very long and we’re in economic depression territory.

So, thanks for the wakeup call president Trump. The fact Trump has indicated he will postpone his final decision until February 1, is of some comfort. Danielle Smith has met with him at Mar-a-Lago to make the case against tariffs on Canadian crude. Smith is among the most knowledgeable and capable people there are when it comes to oil and gas production and trade. We couldn’t hope for a better advocate for the producing provinces. She’s certainly a cut above Justin Trudeau and anyone else in his cabinet. Let’s hope Smith she managed to convince Trump how imposing tariffs would harm the economies of both countries.

There is an obvious way to prevent being in this sort of situation in the future – diversify our export opportunities by building more pipelines to tidewater. In my last column I focused on the difficulties involved in getting a pipeline built to the Atlantic coast. The challenges identified focused on the barriers thrown up by Quebec’s politicians and environmentalists. Trump’s ongoing tariff pronouncements suggest it would be in Canada’s national strategic interest to use whatever legal measures are required to sweep those barriers aside in both Quebec and British Columbia to get new tidewater pipelines built.

There is plenty the federal government can do to override the demands of municipalities, special interest groups and provincial governments in support of high national purposes and in emergencies. Section 91 of the constitution gives parliament broad, albeit somewhat vague, powers to do what needs to be done “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada” in all matters not exclusively the jurisdiction of the provinces. And, you would think that if the heavy hand of the Emergencies Act can be used to prevent horn honking and traffic snarls in Ottawa, it could be employed to prevent the environmentally sanctimonious from blocking projects critical to our economic and political sovereignty. Of course doing any of this will require voting the Liberals out of office.

Sorry premier Ford, retaliatory tariffs and export taxes can’t be the only tools employed; especially when they cause self-inflicted wounds.  Unfortunately, until we have more export opportunities for oil and gas we may need to limit our counter attacks on Americans to misleading travel directions and poor restaurant service.

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Justin Trudeau’s imminent exit from office may mark the beginning of the end of a 10-year war on Canada’s energy sector, and by extension, Canada’s economy.

Canada is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, currently supplying 6 per cent of global production. Canada is the fifth-largest producer of natural gas, supplying 5 per cent of global demand. The energy sector (oil, gas, electricity) constitutes more than 10 per cent of Canada’s total gross domestic product (GDP). In 2023, the latest year of available data, the energy sector provided, directly and indirectly, almost 700,000 jobs or 3.5 per cent of all jobs in Canada. And Canadian energy exports totalling $200 billion comprised 28 per cent of all Canadian exported goods.

But however vast and vital Canada’s energy sector is our wellbeing, Prime Minister Trudeau worked tirelessly to restrain, restrict, diminish and ultimately “phase out” Canada’s fossil fuel industries. Here are some of the highlights of his war on Canada’s energy sector.

In 2017, Trudeau introduced Bill C-48, which restricts oil tankers off Canada’s west coast and limits the ability of Canada’s oilsands sector to export product to new markets, keeping Canada’s energy resources trapped in a discount-price U.S. market. Also in 2017, much to the fury of many Albertans, Trudeau announced his intention to phase out oilsands production, the foundation of Alberta’s prosperity.

In 2018, Trudeau introduced Bill C-69, which tightened Canada’s environmental assessment process for major infrastructure projects and made the process of obtaining government permission for major energy projects more costly, time-consuming and arbitrary, thus increasing uncertainty across the energy sector. And he introduced the carbon tax despite strenuous opposition by Canada’s energy sector and energy-producing provinces.

In 2020, Trudeau launched his broadest and most intense regulatory crusade against Canada’s energy sector, introducing Bill C-12, which committed Canada to reach “net-zero” emissions of greenhouse gasses by 2050. Net-zero means Canada cannot emit more greenhouse gases via energy production and consumption than is taken out of the air by natural processes and the ecosystem. This would require vastly reduced production and consumption of fossil fuels in Canada, with consequences for the energy sector’s productivity and employment potential moving toward 2050.

In 2023, Trudeau attacked fossil fuel use in the transportation sector by mandating that all new cars sales be electric vehicles by 2035. And he released draft “clean electricity regulations” to phase out the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation by the year 2050.

During his time as prime minister, Trudeau attacked Canada’s energy sector, with eliminationist language and onerous regulations meant to essentially phaseout a major supplier of economic productivity and employment in Canada, to the great detriment of Canadians.

Hopefully, the next prime minister will reject Trudeau’s anti-energy agenda and have the will and ability to rescind the many damaging laws and regulations that that the Trudeau government has inflicted on a vital sector of the Canadian economy.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute