Connect with us

Alberta

Referendum will help Albertans kickstart national conversation about unfair Equalization, Danielle Smith

Published

11 minute read

This is an exert from a newsletter by Danielle Smith.  Click here to register to receive Danielle’s future newsletters.

Equalization referendum…

During the Stampede I met a pollster doing some polling on the equalization referendum in the fall. It has me worried. If the vote were held today there would be a lot of undecided. While it would likely still pass, we need the vote to be resounding so there can be no mistake how Albertans feel they are being treated.

For those of us who are diehard activists, voting “Yes” to remove equalization from the Constitution is a no brainer. When Brian Jean first proposed it I thought it was a waste of time. What’s is the point of having the province vote on a federal program? I initially thought.

Then Jean explained it to me in an interview and I thought the strategy was brilliant. By voting yes to delete a section of the Constitution it gets the ball rolling for a bigger conversation about Alberta’s role in Confederation. Under our parliamentary system – advised by court rulings and conventions – constitutional scholars say a “yes” vote will initiate a process that will unroll across the country. The federal government will be obligated to negotiate with Alberta in good faith and the other provincial legislatures will be compelled to consider a similar question in their provincial legislatures.

Here’s how it would work…
 
Here’s what could happen if we have a yes vote.

  1. The other provinces will be compelled to consider and vote on the issue. If there are 7 out of 10 representing 50 per cent of the population it will be removed from the Constitution.

Admittedly, this is an unlikely outcome. I think we could convince AB, BC, SK, ON and NF that we are all being similarly hosed under the existing equalization program, but how would you ever convince net recipients such as QC, NS, PEI, NB and MB? Still, it would get a national conversation going about why the net payers are so frustrated.

  1. If we don’t get others to agree, the principle of equalization stays in the Constitution, but we have a meaningful two-way dialogue about how it should be restructured, and that means designing it so QC no longer receives any money through the program from the rest of us.

I told you I went to the Fairness Alberta breakfast over the Stampede. Executive Director Bill Bewick is doing a terrific job digging into the numbers and explaining how absurd the entire program is.

Consider this: Newfoundland and Labrador is on the brink of bankruptcy and doesn’t qualify for equalization. Quebec has been running surpluses and paying down debt and they receive $10 billion from the program.

If I had my druthers, my starting point would be that only small provinces should be allowed to qualify for equalization. I think PEI has it particularly tough – attempting to run all the provincial programs that are available in other provinces with a population the size of Red Deer. Providing a top up for provinces in this situation is what the program should be all about. I want Islanders to have the same quality of health care, education, social services and infrastructure as we do.

But we need to be frank about this. The equalization formula has been manipulated and massaged mainly so federal politicians can give money to Quebec. Maybe it began with good intentions, as francophones began to assert themselves and their right to operate their businesses primarily in French and needed a hand up to catch up. Maybe it was justified when Quebeckers were sharply divided on whether it was worth it to stay in Canada, as evidenced by the 50-50 referendum result in 1995.

But today, it’s just taking advantage. In fact, it’s bordering on abuse.

Quebec is taking advantage of our goodwill…
 
Last week, Quebec’s Environment Minister Benoit Charette announced that Quebec would be rejecting a $14 billion project that would have seen GNL Quebec bring liquefied natural gas from Western Canada – principally Alberta – to Port Saguenay, Quebec so it could be exported on to Europe and Asia. Charette said it did not meet his standards for the environment:


“The promoter has not succeeded in demonstrating this, on the contrary,” he said, adding that the government is worried it would discourage natural gas buyers in Europe and Asia from moving to cleaner energy sources. “This is a project that has more disadvantages than advantages.”This is truly the last straw for me. If the Quebec government hates our energy industry this much and is actively working to destroy our natural gas industry I’m done with appeasement.

On the contrary, Minister…

Liquefied natural gas offers the best opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world. It is already “the cleaner burning fuel” as the ads used to say when I was growing up. It can easily replace coal in power plants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both China and India (which are adding coal-fired powerplants at a rate that dramatically exceeds the addition of wind and solar power everywhere in the world). Coupled with carbon capture and storage (underground) or utilization (for useful products including carbon nanofibre, concrete, industrial minerals, alcohol and ethylene) the greenhouse gas emissions problem can be solved. It is also going to be the base fuel for the new and emerging hydrogen economy, which will power all the heavy transportation we need to continue operating our global trade economy – marine vessels, trucks, trains, maybe even airplanes one day.

I am tired of placating the fantasy that our modern industrial economy is going to be powered by wind and solar and nothing else. Yes, hydrogen now offers a meaningful way for wind and solar to store the energy they produce, finally moving them towards being a reliable source of energy for our power grid. But once you’ve generated hydrogen at a wind or solar site, how do you transport it anywhere so it can be used for other purposes? The natural gas business can move it in pipelines. You can’t move hydrogen on powerlines.

But wind and solar are also not carbon neutral until concrete, steel, fibre glass, rare earth materials and transportation are carbon neutral. Wind and solar are not more environmentally friendly until they stop killing migratory birds and bats. Wind and solar are not environmentally neutral until we find a way to recycle them at the end of use (rather than dumping everything in a landfill).

If Quebec wants to interfere with the development of our resources, damage our economy and cost us jobs, I refuse to send them any more of our money. We cannot continue being economically hobbled by Quebec and damaged by federal government policy and expected to keep on shipping out dollars to Quebec. I would be delighted to see a financially independent, strong Quebec paying for their subsidized day care all on their own.

If they want to stand on their own two feet, bravo, let’s help them out. Let’s cut off the money pipeline.

Let’s help Quebec become financially independent…

Fairness Alberta has said three simple changes could cut the cost of the program in half and make sure Quebec is cut off almost entirely.

  1. Stop adjusting the program to increase expenditures with GDP growth. This just makes logical sense. As provinces get wealthier and develop more own-source revenue they should need fewer federal transfers.
  2. Adjust the payments to take into account inflation and different costs of delivering services in different provinces. It’s a lot more expensive to hire a nurse in Alberta than in PEI, for instance.
  3. Add four cents to Quebec hydro. Quebec subsidizes electricity rates which lowers the amount of revenues available to government. Imagine if Alberta sold oil and natural gas below market value and then asked Ottawa to make up the shortfall. It’s bananas.

None of this negotiation can happen unless Albertans send a strong message that they have had it with the status quo.

Voting yes in the referendum means you are voting to eliminate or renegotiate. Voting no means you are happy being treated as the doormat of Confederation. Vote yes and make sure to tell your neighbours and friends to also.

Because as Bill points out on his Fairness Alberta website, this particular program is only one way that extra money gets transferred out of Alberta. As of 2019, Alberta has transferred nearly $325 billion to the rest of the country. We have to start changing this. Equalization is just the start.

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

Alberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale

Published on

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Oil sands could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years

Investor interest in Canadian oil producers, primarily in the Alberta oil sands, has picked up, and not only because of expanded export capacity from the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Enverus Intelligence Research says the real draw — and a major factor behind oil sands equities outperforming U.S. peers by about 40 per cent since January 2024 — is the resource Trans Mountain helps unlock.

Alberta’s oil sands contain 167 billion barrels of reserves, nearly four times the volume in the United States.

Today’s oil sands operators hold more than twice the available high-quality resources compared to U.S. shale producers, Enverus reports.

“It’s a huge number — 167 billion barrels — when Alberta only produces about three million barrels a day right now,” said Mike Verney, executive vice-president at McDaniel & Associates, which earlier this year updated the province’s oil and gas reserves on behalf of the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Already fourth in the world, the assessment found Alberta’s oil reserves increased by seven billion barrels.

Verney said the rise in reserves despite record production is in part a result of improved processes and technology.

“Oil sands companies can produce for decades at the same economic threshold as they do today. That’s a great place to be,” said Michael Berger, a senior analyst with Enverus.

BMO Capital Markets estimates that Alberta’s oil sands reserves could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years.

The long-term picture looks different south of the border.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that American production will peak before 2030 and enter a long period of decline.

Having a lasting stable source of supply is important as world oil demand is expected to remain strong for decades to come.

This is particularly true in Asia, the target market for oil exports off Canada’s West Coast.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region will go from 35 million barrels per day in 2024 to 41 million barrels per day in 2050.

The growing appeal of Alberta oil in Asian markets shows up not only in expanded Trans Mountain shipments, but also in Canadian crude being “re-exported” from U.S. Gulf Coast terminals.

According to RBN Energy, Asian buyers – primarily in China – are now the main non-U.S. buyers from Trans Mountain, while India dominates  purchases of re-exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast. .

BMO said the oil sands offers advantages both in steady supply and lower overall environmental impacts.

“Not only is the resulting stability ideally suited to backfill anticipated declines in world oil supply, but the long-term physical footprint may also be meaningfully lower given large-scale concentrated emissions, high water recycling rates and low well declines,” BMO analysts said.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Canada’s New Green Deal

Published on

From Resource Works

By

Nuclear power a key piece of Western Canadian energy transition

Just reading the headlines, Canadians can be forgiven for thinking last week’s historic agreement between Alberta and Ottawa was all about oil and pipelines, and all about Alberta.

It’s much bigger than that.

The memorandum of understanding signed between Canada and Alberta is an ambitious Western Canadian industrial, energy and decarbonization strategy all in one.

The strategy aims to decarbonize the oil and gas sectors through large-scale carbon capture and storage, industrial carbon pricing, methane abatement, industrial electrification, and nuclear power.

It would also provide Canadian “cloud sovereignty” through AI computing power, and would tie B.C. and Saskatchewan into the Alberta dynamo with beefed up power transmission interties.

A new nuclear keystone

Energy Alberta’s Peace River Nuclear Power Project could be a keystone to the strategy.

The MOU sets January 1, 2027 as the date for a new nuclear energy strategy to provide nuclear power “to an interconnected market” by 2050.

Scott Henuset, CEO for Energy Alberta, was pleased to see the nuclear energy strategy included in the MOU.

“We, two years ago, went out on a limb and said we’re going to do this, really believing that this was the path forward, and now we’re seeing everyone coming along that this is the path forward for power in Canada,” he said.

The company proposes to build a four-unit, 4,800-megawatt Candu Monark power plant in Peace River, Alberta. That’s equivalent to four Site C dams worth of power.

The project this year entered a joint review by the Impact Assessment Agency and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

If approved, and all goes to schedule, the first 1,000-MW unit could begin producing power in 2035.

Indigenous consultation and experienced leadership

“I think that having this strategy broadly points to a cleaner energy future, while at the same time recognizing that oil still is going to be a fundamental driver of economies for decades to come,” said Ian Anderson, the former CEO of Trans Mountain Corporation who now serves as an advisor to Energy Alberta.

Energy Alberta is engaged with 37 First Nations and Metis groups in Alberta on the project. Anderson was brought on board to help with indigenous consultation.

While working on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Anderson spent a decade working with more than 60 First Nations in B.C. and Alberta to negotiate impact benefit agreements.

In addition to indigenous consultations, Anderson is also helping out with government relations, and has met with B.C. Energy Minister Adrian Dix, BC Hydro chairman Glen Clark and the head of Powerex to discuss the potential for B.C. beef up interties between the two provinces.

“I’ve done a lot of political work in B.C. over the decade, so it’s a natural place for me to assist,” Anderson said. “Hopefully it doesn’t get distracted by the pipeline debate. They’re two separate agendas and objectives.”

Powering the grid and the neighbours

B.C. is facing a looming shortage of industrial power, to the point where it now plans to ration it.

“We see our project as a backbone to support renewables, support industrial growth, support data centres as well as support larger interties to B.C. which will also strengthen the Canadian grid as a whole,” Henuset said.

Despite all the new power generation B.C. has built and plans to build, industrial demand is expected to far exceed supply. One of the drivers of that future demand is requests for power for AI data centres.

The B.C. government recently announced Bill 31 — the Energy Statutes Amendment Act – which will prioritize mines and LNG plants for industrial power.

Other energy intensive industries, like bitcoin mining, AI data centres and green hydrogen will either be explicitly excluded or put on a power connection wait list.

Beefed up grid connections with Alberta – something that has been discussed for decades – could provide B.C. with a new source of zero-emission power from Alberta, though it might have to loosen its long-standing anti-nuclear power stance.

Energy Minister Adrian Dix was asked in the Legislature this week if B.C. is open to accessing a nuclear-powered grid, and his answer was deflective.

“The member will know that we have been working with Alberta on making improvements to the intertie,” Dix answered. “Alberta has made commitments since 2007 to improve those connections. It has not done so.

“We are fully engaged with the province of Alberta on that question. He’ll also know that we are, under the Clean Electricity Act, not pursuing nuclear opportunities in B.C. and will not be in the future.”

The B.C. NDP government seems to be telling Alberta, “not only do we not want Alberta’s dirty oil, we don’t want any of its clean electricity either.”

Interconnected markets

Meanwhile, BC Hydro’s second quarter report confirms it is still a net importer of electricity, said Barry Penner, chairman of the Energy Futures Initiative.

“We have been buying nuclear power from the United States,” he said. “California has one operating power plant and there’s other nuclear power plants around the western half of the United States.”

In a recent blog post, Penner notes: “BC Hydro had to import power even as 7,291 megawatts of requested electrical service was left waiting in our province.”

If the NDP government wants B.C. to participate in an ambitious Western Canadian energy transition project, it might have to drop its holier-than-thou attitude towards Alberta, oil and nuclear power.

“We’re looking at our project as an Alberta project that has potential to support Western Canada as a whole,” Henuset said.

“We see our project as a backbone to support renewables, support industrial growth, support data centres, as well as support larger interties to B.C., which will also strengthen the Canadian grid as a whole.”

The investment challenge

The strategy that Alberta and Ottawa have laid out is ambitious, and will require tens of billions in investment.

“The question in the market is how much improvement in the regulatory prospects do we need to see in order for capital to be committed to the projects,” Anderson said.

The federal government will need to play a role in derisking the project, as it has done with the new Darlington nuclear project, with financing from the Canada Growth Fund and Canadian Infrastructure Bank.

“There will be avenues of federal support that will help derisk the project for private equity investors, as well as for banks,” Henuset said.

One selling point for the environmental crowd is that a combination of carbon capture and nuclear power could facilitate a blue and green hydrogen industry.

But to really sell this plan to the climate concerned, what is needed is a full assessment of the potential GHG reductions that may accrue from things like nuclear power, CCS, industrial carbon pricing and all of the other measures for decarbonization.

Fortunately, the MOU also scraps greenwashing laws that prevent those sorts of calculations from being done.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X