Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic.
'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.'
She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government.
'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up.
'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.'
Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target'
'(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.'
She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas.
'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada.
One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors.
This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.'
On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority.
'(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said.
Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast.
'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.'
Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option.
'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money.
'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis.
'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.'
Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice.
'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away.
'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there.
Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.'
Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation.
'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said.
John Ivison: Premiers seem delighted just to finally be meeting with a grown-up PM
John Ivison: The first Carney spending numbers are as bad as Trudeau's
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 minutes ago
- Forbes
What To Expect On Interest Rates For The Remainder Of 2025
Fixed income markets see two or three interest rate cuts coming from the Federal Open Market Committee over the three remaining scheduled meetings of 2025. Soft jobs growth as reported for July and downward revisions to prior month's reports may call for incrementally lower interest rates. However, there is more economic data to come before the FOMC's next meeting to set interest rates on September 17. The Fed's Remaining Meeting Schedule Having held interest rates steady at 4.25% to 4.5% for the first five meetings of 2025, the FOMC has three scheduled meetings left. Interest rate decisions from these meetings will be announced on September 17, October 29 and December 10. The September and December meetings will also include an update to the FOMC's Summary of Economic Projections, where policymakers provide forecasts for economic variables including interest rates. The Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, will hold a press conference after each meeting. Powell is also scheduled to speak at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium during August 21-23. Historically these speeches from the Fed Chair have often been significant in signaling perspectives on monetary policy. Slowing Recent Job Growth Part of the FOMC's mandate is full employment, and July's jobs report showed some slowing in job growth. However, perhaps more importantly, job growth for May and June was revised down. That data and the accompanying revisions to prior months may be sufficient to prompt the FOMC to cut interest rates in September. That's because the pace of hiring over the past 3 months is now the slowest since the last recession. Although, despite recently slowing job growth, unemployment has remained in a relatively narrow band of 4% to 4.2% since May 2024. The FOMC will also have August's jobs report, scheduled for release on September 5, when they next meet on September 17 so that will provide further color on employment trends. Inflation Data Updates to the Consumer Price index will come on August 12 and September 11. Despite subdued inflation for much of 2025 so far, the most recent CPI report for the month of June showed some inflationary pressure from tariffs on the prices of goods. However, even if inflation does pick-up, some policymakers have argued that the FOMC should look through what may be a one-time increase in prices. Rolling Back Restrictive Monetary Policy If there is further evidence that the jobs market could be softening and provided inflation figures remain generally tame, then the FOMC may elect to ease monetary policy. That's because monetary policy is currently somewhat restrictive, a position the FOMC put in place to help curtail inflation. Markets currently expect that a September 17 interest rate cut is highly likely, although not certain. Following that, cuts in October and December are possible. This makes it likely that the Federal Funds rate ends the year at under 4% according to the CME FedWatch Tool. However, much of this projection will be subject to upcoming economic data. Recent Dissents A cut in September is also fairly likely because July's meeting saw two dissents calling for lower interest rates. That's relatively unusual. In both cases, these dissents were due to seeing early risks to the jobs market and a willingness to look through any tariff-related inflation as a one-off event. Governor Waller telegraphed his dissent in a recent speech, which proved prescient on revisions to jobs figures. Michelle Bowman explained her dissent in a recent statement. What To Expect Barring unexpected economic data the FOMC appears on course to cut interest rates in September, at their next meeting. Beyond that further cuts could come in October or December and possibly at both meetings. Much will depend on labor market data. If the labor market is seen to be slowing, as July's jobs report suggests it could be, then the FOMC may elect to address that with lower interest rates, even if inflation remains a little above target.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Side Gigs That Could Struggle in a High-Tariff Economy
The world is bracing for a changing economy as many of President Trump's new tariffs go into effect. Not only will these added costs on imports hurt Americans' wallets, they could make earning money in the gig economy harder, too. Consider This: Read Next: Trump announced on Wednesday, July 16 that he would send a letter implementing tariffs on goods from 150 smaller countries. Tariffs with larger trade partners, including Mexico, the European Union and Canada would also go into effect on August 1. Tariffs already in effect include a 25% tariff on vehicle import and auto parts, a 30% tariff on many Chinese imports, and up to 50% on steel and aluminum, according to NewsNation. These tariffs will affect prices on consumer goods, which, in turn, could hurt small businesses and gig workers. GOBankingRates spoke with Keith Spencer, career expert at Resume Now, to find out which gig workers could be hit hardest by tariffs in 2025. Rideshare and Delivery Drivers Drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft could feel the sting of tariffs on oil imports, motor vehicles and car parts, which would increase their business costs. 'Fuel, tires and parts, many of which are imported, become more expensive,' Spencer said. At the same time, demand might decrease. Faced with rising costs, people might forgo little luxuries like ordering DoorDash or having their groceries delivered via InstaCart. 'In a high-tariff economy, side gigs that rely heavily on consumer convenience tend to struggle first,' Spencer said. 'When prices rise, people naturally start cutting back on discretionary spending. That often impacts gig workers who depend on steady, high-volume demand.' Learn More: Task-Based Gigs and Home Help People who have been making money doing random tasks around the home through services like TaskRabbit may struggle to find customers. People who assemble furniture, mount TVs or perform small contracting and handyman tasks around the home will likely feel the impact of tariffs. People may choose to complete these tasks on their own rather than hiring someone. Plus, Spencer said, 'If the price of imported goods like furniture or electronics increases, people may delay or avoid those purchases. That naturally reduces demand for anyone offering services to set them up. Even when demand is steady, the cost of tools and materials often rises, which means gig workers are spending more out of pocket just to do their jobs.' Online Resellers If you've been earning money through eBay, Facebook Marketplace or affiliate sales, you may want to brace yourself for reduced sales and shrinking profit margins. 'If your side hustle involves sourcing products from overseas, such as electronics, clothing or beauty items, you may see your margins shrink,' Spencer said. 'Tariffs raise the base cost of goods, and consumers may push back on higher prices. That combination makes it harder for solo sellers to compete or stay profitable.' What To Do Instead While some gig workers may struggle, it doesn't mean the gig economy is dead. 'Not all side gigs are equally vulnerable,' Spencer said. Pointing to recent data from Resume Now, he noted that administrative support roles saw a 10% pay increase in the first quarter of 2025. Remote healthcare support has seen 70% year-over-year growth, based on further Resume Now data. 'Workers who want to future-proof their income in a high-tariff or high-cost economy might consider transitioning into roles that are both essential and automation-resistant,' Spencer advised. 'The side gigs most likely to succeed in a high-tariff economy are those that meet essential needs, help others cut costs, or can be performed remotely.' More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 7 Luxury SUVs That Will Become Affordable in 2025 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 3 Side Gigs That Could Struggle in a High-Tariff Economy Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Highwood Asset Management (CVE:HAM) shareholders have endured a 67% loss from investing in the stock five years ago
Generally speaking long term investing is the way to go. But that doesn't mean long term investors can avoid big losses. For example, after five long years the Highwood Asset Management Ltd. (CVE:HAM) share price is a whole 67% lower. That's an unpleasant experience for long term holders. It's worthwhile assessing if the company's economics have been moving in lockstep with these underwhelming shareholder returns, or if there is some disparity between the two. So let's do just that. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. While markets are a powerful pricing mechanism, share prices reflect investor sentiment, not just underlying business performance. One way to examine how market sentiment has changed over time is to look at the interaction between a company's share price and its earnings per share (EPS). Highwood Asset Management became profitable within the last five years. Most would consider that to be a good thing, so it's counter-intuitive to see the share price declining. Other metrics might give us a better handle on how its value is changing over time. Revenue is actually up 42% over the time period. A more detailed examination of the revenue and earnings may or may not explain why the share price languishes; there could be an opportunity. The image below shows how earnings and revenue have tracked over time (if you click on the image you can see greater detail). We consider it positive that insiders have made significant purchases in the last year. Even so, future earnings will be far more important to whether current shareholders make money. So it makes a lot of sense to check out what analysts think Highwood Asset Management will earn in the future (free profit forecasts). A Different Perspective Investors in Highwood Asset Management had a tough year, with a total loss of 1.3%, against a market gain of about 22%. Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. However, the loss over the last year isn't as bad as the 11% per annum loss investors have suffered over the last half decade. We'd need to see some sustained improvements in the key metrics before we could muster much enthusiasm. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Take risks, for example - Highwood Asset Management has 4 warning signs (and 1 which can't be ignored) we think you should know about. If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: most of them are flying under the radar). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Canadian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
