Dan McTeague
Ottawa’s intentional destruction of western wealth
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b88c0/b88c023238ce5f4ed57789fc95170ba42f0af580" alt=""
From Canadians for Affordable Energy
Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream.
At this point, everyone in Canada has heard about the Carbon Tax and had a chance to experience its negative effects. But less has been said about another harmful policy dreamed up by the Trudeau government — the Emissions Cap on the oil and gas sector. Just like the Carbon Tax, the Emissions Cap is part of Trudeau’s larger program to try and achieve “Net Zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, which will have no positive impact on the environment, but which will be ruinous to Canada’s natural resource sector and to the national economy.
In their 2021 platform, the Liberals made a commitment to “cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector” and proclaimed that that industry must reduce emissions “at a pace and scale needed to achieve net-zero by 2050.” As promised, in December 2023 the Trudeau government proposed an Emissions Cap to reduce GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. Keep in mind Canada contributes only 1.5% of global emissions, so this plan, even if accomplished, would reduce global emissions by less than one half of one percent.
Even if it fails to hit its emissions targets (which it will,) the economic consequences of enacting this plan are very serious. It would make Canada the only country in the world which willingly and purposefully stifles its single largest revenue stream. After all, the oil and gas industry generates $45 billion per year in annual economic activity, and contributes $170 billion per year to the GDP.
But don’t take my word for it. According to a Deloitte report commissioned by the Government of Alberta, an Emissions Cap would lead to a 10% decrease in Alberta’s oil production and a 16% decrease in conventional natural gas production. Fossil fuel production would decrease in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland as well. Other industries connected to the oil and gas sector such as the mining, refinery products, and utilities are also expected to be impacted and will experience a decrease in output in Alberta and the rest of Canada.
The report goes on to state that in 2040 “Alberta’s GDP is estimated to be lower by 4.5% and Canada’s GDP by 1.0% compared to the baseline.”
It notes that because it is assumed that “the Cap is a permanent measure, the shift in the output of the oil and gas sector and associated losses are permanent and accumulate over time. Cumulatively, over the 2030 to 2040 period, we estimate that real GDP in Alberta is $191 billion lower and real GDP in the Rest of Canada is $91 billion lower, compared to the baseline scenario ($2017 dollars).”
Of course, the environmentalists will crow that the oil and gas industry is dying anyway and the demand for oil and gas around the world is slowly decreasing, but this is simply not true.
Global demand for oil and gas is only growing and will continue to do so. According to the report, “Based on current policy and before the impact of the Cap, we expect: Oil production in Canada to increase by 27% by 2030 and 32% by 2040 from 2021 levels; and Gas production in Canada to increase by 10% by 2030 and 16% by 2040 from 2021 levels.”
And this isn’t the only study which projects negative outcomes from this policy. The Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) released a study which describes how the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap for the energy sector would “cost the Canadian economy between $44.8 billion and $79.3 billion a year” and would “cause substantial losses, without achieving any net reduction in global emission.”
You can read the study here.
Plus it is worth noting that this emissions cap will result in “substantial losses without achieving any net reduction in global emissions.”
Why? Because of the increase in global demands for oil and gas, we can either produce those resources here or get them from another country that has no environmental, much less labour standards, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.
To add insult to injury for the oil and gas producing provinces, and as I’ve pointed out in the past, this cap on emissions would apply only to the oil and gas sector. This emissions cap would not apply to the concrete industry, the automotive industry, or the mining industry. And — surprise surprise — it certainly won’t apply to Montreal’s lucrative jet-building industry.
But take heed: this isn’t simply an Alberta issue. This is a Canadian issue and one that everyone in Canada should be concerned about.
The umbrella of Net Zero by 2050 is large and far reaching, and an emissions cap is simply one part of a multi-layered attack on our economy and way of life. Carbon taxes, layered on top of a Clean Fuel Standard, layered on top of pipeline blockages, layered on top of Bills C-48 and C-69, preventing oil from being shipped from other parts of the world — will run counter to our national interests, and endanger the Canadian way of life for generations to come.
If Canadians are now vehemently opposed to carbon taxes, as we suggested would be the case half a dozen years ago, wait for this unnecessary burden to befall them.
In the words made famous by the Canadian rock legend BTO, “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
Alberta
Canadians owe Smith a debt of gratitude
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/857ed/857ed41672ae2b964127bc783a283609353331c8" alt=""
“Thank you, Danielle Smith!”
That is what every man, woman, and child in our great nation should be shouting from the rooftops this week. Instead, our journalists, politicians, and their army of Leftist loudmouths on social media, are sticking with the story that she’s, somehow, a traitor. That couldn’t be further from the truth, and every one of them should be ashamed of themselves for saying it.
In fact, Smith has been almost entirely alone in fighting for Canada since Donald Trump began broadcasting his intention to use the threat of tariffs to pressure our government on illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking over our border.
The response from the media was first mockery and scorn — ‘Look at this American buffoon! He doesn’t even know how much he needs us!’ — followed by outrage at Trump and any Canadian who dared to suggest he might have a point. “Where is their patriotism?!” asked elitists who have spent their careers scoffing at any and every expression of Canadian pride.
And the response from our governing class has been all virtue-signaling and egotism. Yes, Justin Trudeau flew to Mar-a-Lago to make a perfunctory case against the tariff, but he took every opportunity which presented itself to trash Trump, accuse the American people who elected him of sexism, and imply that Canadians who might consider voting conservative were just as bad.
Meanwhile, Doug Ford began his chest-thumping ‘Captain Canada’ act, while calling an early election with an eye towards keeping himself in power for a few more years. The argument for this move didn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Why did Ford call an election in the middle of what he described as an all-hands-on-deck national emergency? Because he needed a huge majority in Queen’s Park to authorize the COVID-19-level government spending and interventions he needed to respond to Trump’s tariff… never mind the fact that the opposition parties are entirely on board with government spending and intervention.
Maybe he was worried that there are still a few conservatives left in his own caucus who’d object to him driving Ontario’s finances further into the mud? He shouldn’t be – if they stuck with him as he sunk billions into the dying EV industry, they’re likely to stick with him now.
In any event, Ford has created a situation where, in the midst of a crisis, his attention is split between governing and campaigning. It’s self-interest all the way down!
Smith, on the other hand, sprang into action. She flew to the States, first to Mar-a-Lago and then to Washington, and tirelessly made the case to all of the major players on this file — Trump himself, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and others — that the U.S. and Canada are better off working together.
She made it clear that Albertans are also concerned about the border, and about fentanyl trafficking. She criticized Trudeau’s anti-Trump tirades as “not helpful,” slammed proposals to cut off Canadian oil and gas to the U.S., and called for Ottawa to appoint a border and drugs czar, ideally a retired general, rather than some political flunky, an idea which has gotten support from retired members of our military corps.
Her instinct has always been towards turning down the temperature, rather than trying to heat things up — that, by the way, is called “diplomacy” — and she never missed an opportunity to stand up for our oil and gas industry. When our Laurentian elite began sabre rattling about slapping an export duty on Canadian energy heading south, she stood opposed to that as well.
And this is at the heart of the Liberal critique of Smith. She’s betrayed Canada, they say, because she only cares about Alberta and its energy industry. She stands opposed to any action which might imperil Albertan oil and gas.
To which I say: Of course! And good on her for it.
Because, remember, it isn’t only Alberta’s oil and gas industry. It’s Canada’s. And though Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney, and their “green” ideologue friends might wish it otherwise, oil and gas remains the backbone of the Canadian economy. It is our “golden goose,” in the words of economists Jack Mintz and Philip Cross, in a recent study of Canada’s resource sector. And it is far too important to the livelihood of Canadians — not just Albertans mind you — for the Trudeau Liberals to use it as a bargaining chip. Especially since they’ve spent years hamstringing it, while suggesting that we’d ultimately be better off if it went the way of the Dodo.
It’s worth noting that when the (short-lived) tariffs were announced, the White House underlined Smith’s advocacy by singling out oil and gas for a lower rate. More importantly, the concessions from Trudeau which got us our present reprieve — the drug czar and enhanced border enforcement especially — were first proposed by Smith!
So, a separatist? A traitor? Perish the thought! Smith is an advocate for our interests, and a great Canadian.
Hopefully, as we try to avert the unwelcome return of these tariffs, the government looks to Danielle Smith for some guidance. Especially because, chances are, her advice will be, ‘Call an election, so our prime minister has a mandate from the people and can negotiate from a position of strength!’
For the good of Canada, here’s hoping they listen.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy
Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!
Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.
Automotive
Trudeau must repeal the EV mandate
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e64/77e64939a999e2245e5903633663bd5a4fe3fe7e" alt=""
Last Monday, Transport Canada released a bombshell statement, announcing that the Trudeau government’s program granting a $5,000 rebate to Canadians purchasing an Electric Vehicle (EV) had run out of money and would be discontinued, “effective immediately.” This followed a prior announcement from the government of Quebec that they would be suspending their own subsidy, which had amounted to $7,000 per EV purchased.
This is, of course, a game changer for an industry which the Trudeau government (as well as the Ford government in Ontario) has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in. That’s because, no matter the country, the EV industry is utterly dependent upon a system of carrots and sticks from the government, in the form of subsidies and mandates.
EVs have remained notably more expensive than traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, even with those government incentive programs. Without them the purchase of EVs becomes impossible for all but the wealthiest Canadians.
Which is fine. Let the rich people have their toys, if they want them. Though if they justify the expense by saying that they’re saving the planet by it, I may be tempted to deflate them a bit by pointing out that EVs are in no way appreciably better for the environment than ICE vehicles, how all the lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, aluminum, copper, etc, contained in just one single EV battery requires displacing about 500,000 lbs of earth. Mining these materials often takes place in poorer countries with substandard environmental regulations.
Moreover, the weight of those batteries means that EVs burn through tires more quickly than gas-and-diesel driven vehicles, and wear down roads faster as well, which among other issues leads to an increase in particulate matter in the air, what in the old days we referred to as “pollution.”
That is a potential issue, but one that is mitigated by the fact that EVs make up a small minority of cars on the road. Regular people have proved unwilling to drive them, and that will be even more true now that the consumer subsidies have disappeared.
Of course, it will be an issue if the Trudeau Liberals get their way. You see, Electric Vehicles are one of the main arenas in their ongoing battle with reality. And so even with the end of their consumer subsidies, they remain committed to their mandates requiring every new vehicle purchased in Canada to be electric by 2035, now just a decade away!
They’ve done away with the carrots, and they’re hoping to keep this plan moving with sticks alone.
This is, in a word, madness.
As I’ve said before, the Electric Vehicle mandate is a terrible policy, and one which should be repealed immediately. Canada is about the worst place to attempt this particular experiment with social engineering. It is famously cold, and EVs are famously bad in the cold, charging much slower in frigid temperatures and struggling to hold a charge. Which itself is a major issue, because our country is also enormous and spread out, meaning that most Canadians have to do a great deal of driving to get from “Point A” to “Point B.”
Canada is sorely lacking in the infrastructure which would be required to keep EVs on the road. We currently have less than 30,000 public charging stations nationwide, which is more than 400,000 short of Natural Resources Canada’s projection of what we will need to support the mandated total EV transition.
Our electrical grid is already stressed, without the addition of tens of millions of battery powered vehicles being plugged in every night over a very short time. And of course, irony of ironies, this transition is supposed to take place while our activist government is pushing us on to less reliable energy sources, like wind and solar!
Plus, as I’ve pointed out before, the economic case for EVs, such as it was, has been completely upended by the recent U.S. election. Donald Trump’s victory means that our neighbors to the south are in no immediate danger of being forced to ditch gas-and-diesel driven cars. Consequently, the pitch by the Trudeau and Ford governments that Canada was putting itself at the center of an evolving auto market has fallen flat. In reality, they’ve shackled us to a corpse.
So on behalf of my fellow Canadians I say, “Thank you,” to the government for no longer burning our tax dollars on this particular subsidy. But that isn’t even half the battle. It must be followed through with an even bigger next step.
They must repeal the EV mandate.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
-
Carbon Tax2 days ago
Mark Carney has history of supporting CBDCs, endorsed Freedom Convoy crackdown
-
Indigenous14 hours ago
Trudeau gov’t to halt funds for ‘unmarked graves’ search after millions spent, no bodies found
-
Health2 days ago
Trump HHS officially declares only two sexes: ‘Back to science and common sense’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
Business1 day ago
Federal Heritage Minister recommends nearly doubling CBC funding and reducing accountability
-
Business2 days ago
Government debt burden increasing across Canada
-
Business1 day ago
Argentina’s Javier Milei gives Elon Musk chainsaw
-
International2 days ago
Senate votes to confirm Kash Patel as Trump’s FBI director