Alberta
Cenovus replies to low-blow from Norway’s trillion dollar oil fund
From Cenovus Energy
Canada targeted (yet again) as a scapegoat for global climate change challenge
Alex Pourbaix, President & Chief Executive Officer, Cenovus Energy
The recent decision by the Norwegian wealth fund, Norges, to pull its investments in Cenovus Energy and three of our oil sands peers is another example of Canada being used as a pawn by institutions attempting to earn climate points. But these announcements are motivated more by public relations than fact. The data they used to assess Cenovus’s greenhouse gas performance is outdated and incorrect.
Here’s what Norges failed to consider in its decision. Cenovus has reduced the emissions intensity of our oil sands operations by approximately 30 percent over the past 15 years. We’ve set ambitious targets to reduce our per-barrel emissions by another 30 percent across our operations by 2030 and hold absolute emissions flat during that time. We are also focused on innovation that will help us achieve our aspiration of net zero emissions by 2050. Our peers have similar emissions reductions achievements and commitments.
The hypocrisy of the move by Norges is particularly rich, given the sovereign wealth fund amassed its $1 trillion value primarily from oil production profits. Moreover, Norway’s former energy minister is on record saying the country will produce oil for as long as oil is used. Energy is important to Norway’s economy, as it is to Canada’s.
The oil and natural gas industry accounts for the largest share of Canada’s exports and is the most significant contributor to the country’s gross domestic product. This country is amassing a huge deficit as a result of the COVID-19 response, with the parliamentary budget officer suggesting our national debt could hit $1 trillion. That’s more than $26,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Key to reversing this unprecedented debt load will be secure and stable tax revenue to support the economic recovery. Canada’s energy sector has contributed an average of $8 billion annually to provincial and federal government coffers and its strength is fundamental to ensuring this country emerges from the downturn stronger than ever.
Yet, the Canadian oil sands have become an easy target for primarily European investment firms and insurers who have made a big splash announcing they are severing ties with Canadian companies. Pulling out of the oil sands earns these firms headlines but doesn’t have an impact on their business because most of them were not heavily invested in Canada. Canada’s oil sands have long been the poster child for the anti-oil movement. It’s easier to attack a country that has a regulatory system designed to ensure transparency on its environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance than it is to go after oil producing nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia where the commitment to regulation and transparency substantially lags Canadian expectations and standards.
As the leader of a Canadian company whose sector contributes billions to the national economy and directly and indirectly employs 800,000 people – including being the country’s largest employer of Indigenous people – I am standing up for our industry and for Canada. Enough is enough with these unwarranted attacks.
Cenovus and our peers are committed to doing our part to help meet Canada’s climate commitments and contribute to global climate change solutions. We’re investing millions in technologies to reduce our own emissions and collaborating with innovators around the world, including the support of initiatives like the NRG COSIA Carbon XPrize, which is focused on solutions to convert greenhouse gas emissions into valuable products and consumer goods.
Canada is the largest oil-producing jurisdiction in the world with a national price on carbon, and Alberta’s cap on oil sands emissions is an unprecedented commitment. Our industry is committed to achieving Canada’s 45 percent reduction target for methane emissions, addressing a greenhouse gas that is more potent than carbon dioxide. If investors are truly concerned about global greenhouse gas emissions, they should place greater value on Canadian oil and natural gas.
The world is undergoing an energy transition as action is taken to limit global temperature rise. Canada’s energy sector is going to play a key role in supporting the transition. But as we see today, energy and economic growth are inextricably linked and even the most aggressive emissions-reduction scenarios recognize that oil and natural gas will continue to be a significant part of the energy mix for decades to come. Canada has the world’s third largest oil reserves and a significant opportunity to provide the world with the low cost, lower carbon energy it demands.
Just as support for a strong energy sector has benefitted Norwegians, it’s essential for Canadians to recognize the importance of Canada’s energy sector in contributing to our collective economic future.
Alberta
Free Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
Just over a year ago, Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner unveiled a report exploring the potential risks and benefits of an Alberta Pension Plan.
The report, prepared by pension analytics firm LifeWorks – formerly known as Morneau Shepell, the same firm once headed by former federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau – used the exit formula outlined in the Canada Pension Plan Act to determine that if the province exits, it would be entitled to a large share of CPP assets.
According to LifeWorks, Alberta’s younger, predominantly working-class population, combined with higher-than-average income levels, has resulted in the province contributing disproportionately to the CPP.
The analysis pegged Alberta’s share of the CPP account at $334 billion – 53% of the CPP’s total asset pool.
We’ve explained a few times how, while that number might initially sound farfetched, once you understand that Alberta has contributed more than it’s taken out, almost every single year CPP has existed, while other provinces have consistently taken out more than they put in and technically *owe* money, it starts to make more sense.
But, predictably, the usual suspects were outraged.
Media commentators and policy analysts across the country were quick to dismiss the possibility that Alberta could claim such a significant portion. To them, the idea that Alberta workers had been subsidizing the CPP for decades seemed unthinkable.
The uproar prompted an emergency meeting of Canada’s Finance Ministers, led by now-former federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. Alberta pressed for clarity, with Horner requesting a definitive number from the federal government.
Freeland agreed to have the federal Chief Actuary provide an official calculation.
If you think Trudeau should release the pension calculation, click here.
Four months later, the Chief Actuary announced the formation of a panel to “interpret” the CPP’s asset transfer formula – a formula that remains contentious and could drastically impact Alberta’s entitlement.
(Readers will remember that how this formula is interpreted has been the matter of much debate, and could have a significant impact on the amount Alberta is entitled to.)
Once the panel completed its work, the Chief Actuary promised to deliver Alberta’s calculated share by the fall. With December 20th marking the last day of fall, Alberta has finally received a response – but not the one it was waiting for:
“We received their interpretation of the legislation, but it did not contain a number or even a formula for calculating a number,” said Justin Brattinga, Horner’s press secretary.
In other words, the Chief Actuary did the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do.
The Chief Actuary’s job is to calculate each province’s entitlement, based on the formula outlined in the CPP Act.
It is not the Chief Actuary’s job to start making up new interpretations of the formula to suit the federal government’s agenda.
In fact, the idea that the Chief Actuary spent all this time working on the issue, and didn’t even calculate a number is preposterous.
There’s just no way that that’s what happened.
Far more likely is that the Chief Actuary did run the numbers, using the formula in the CPP Act, only for them – and the federal government – to realize that Alberta’s LifeWorks calculation is actually about right.
Cue panic, a rushed attempt to “reinterpret” the formula, and a refusal to provide the number they committed to providing.
In short, we simply don’t believe that the Chief Actuary didn’t, you know, “actuarialize” anything.
For decades, Alberta has contributed disproportionately to the CPP, given its higher incomes and younger population.
Despite all the bluster in the media, this is actually common sense.
A calculation reflecting this reality would not sit well with other provinces, which have benefited from these contributions.
By withholding the actual number, Ottawa confirms the validity of Alberta’s position.
The refusal to release the calculation only adds fuel to the financial firestorm already underway in Ottawa.
Albertans deserve to know the truth about their contributions and entitlements.
We want to see that number.
If you agree, and want to see the federal government’s calculation on what Alberta is owed, sign our petition – Tell Trudeau To Release The Pension Calculation:
Once you’ve signed, send this petition to your friends, family, and all Albertans.
Thank you for your support!
Regards,
The Free Alberta Strategy Team
Alberta
Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess
By Dan McTeague
Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.
There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.
It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.
This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.
Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.
But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.
First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”
Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).
But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.
Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”
And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.
Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”
But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.
In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”
Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.
(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)
Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”
This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.
While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.
As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
Business2 days ago
Canada’s chief actuary fails to estimate Alberta’s share of CPP assets
-
Internet2 days ago
Gov’t memo admits Canadians are shifting to independent news due to distrust of media, not Russian ‘bots’
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days ago
US House report exposes Biden admin push to use AI for censorship of ‘misinformation’
-
Business2 days ago
Biden announces massive new climate goals in final weeks, despite looming Trump takeover
-
Opinion1 day ago
How Christianity Remade the World
-
Business1 day ago
Taxpayers release Naughty and Nice List
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
How The NFL Grinch Bought Xmas: Drowning In A Sea of Football
-
Health1 day ago
Dr. Malone: Bird flu ‘emergency’ in California is a case of psychological bioterrorism