
Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here's why that's a dangerous myth
Current and former Alberta politicians are once again embracing and treating separatist grievances seriously. That means it's time once again to highlight and challenge political misconceptions that have the potential to destroy Canada.
Oil is the root of one such myth. The misconception? That Ottawa perenially opposes the oil and gas sector and is determined to stop its continued growth. The National Energy Program (1980), the Northern Gateway pipeline project (2016), the Energy East Pipeline (2017) and the proposed greenhouse gas pollution cap allegedly prove Ottawa's hostility.
Notably missing from these grievances is the Keystone XL pipeline and the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Ottawa supported these projects aimed at transporting Alberta oilsands crude to foreign markets. The federal government even purchased the Trans Mountain project from Kinder Morgan in 2018 - not to kill it, but to build it.
Read more: Justin Trudeau's risky gamble on the Trans Mountain pipeline
As for Keystone XL, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney thanked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for supporting the project. This doesn't fit the separatist narrative, so it's largely ignored.
No one should dispute the National Energy Program's devastating impact on Alberta's conventional oil and gas sector 40 years ago. But the oilsands, not conventional oil, propelled Canada to its position as the world's fourth largest oil producer.
Has Ottawa facilitated or obstructed the spectacular post-1990 growth of oilsands production?
The record shows that, since the mid-1970s, Ottawa has facilitated and supported the oilsands sector. The federal government helped keep the Syncrude project alive in 1975 when it took a 15 per cent interest in Canada's second oilsands operation.
Ironically, Ottawa's enthusiasm for more, not less, petroleum from the oilsands also appeared in 1980 via the National Energy Program (NEP), the devil in Alberta's conservative catechism. What most accounts of the NEP don't mention is that Ottawa offered tax benefits to oilsands companies while stripping them from conventional oil producers.
Furthermore, the NEP's "made-in-Canada" pricing effectively guaranteed Syncrude would receive the world price for its production. At $38 per barrel, Syncrude received more than double what conventional producers received. If the NEP was harsh on conventional oil producers, it helped create a golden future for the oil sands.
In the mid-1990s, Ottawa helped propel the post-1995 oilsands boom. The industry-dominated National Task Force on Oil Sands Strategies sought federal tax concessions to promote oilsands growth. The federal government delivered them in its 1996 budget, despite Prime Minister Jean Chretien's general concern with cutting the deficit.
Again, these measures clearly contradict the myth of federal opposition to the oil industry.
Ottawa's policy favouritism towards the oilsands didn't end there. It has consistently animated the federal government's treatment of the oilsands in its climate change policies.
The federal Climate Change Plan for Canada (2002) treated oil and gas leniently. Its measures for large industrial emitters bore a striking resemblance to the climate change policy preferences of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Suncor and Syncrude, the two leading oilsands producers, estimated these federal proposals would add a pittance, between 20 and 30 cents, to their per barrel production costs.
Justin Trudeau's response to Alberta's 2015 oilsands emissions cap also underlined Ottawa's favouritism, not hostility, to the dominant player in Canada's oil patch.
Rachel Notley's NDP government set this cap at 100 million tonnes of GHG per year, plus another 10 million tonnes allowed to new upgrading and co-generation facilities. This cap was a whopping 39 million tonnes or 55 per cent higher than what the oilsands emitted in 2014.
This generous cap contributed to a tremendous increase in oilsands production. Healthy profits became record profits in 2022. Ottawa embraced Alberta's largesse, incorporating the province's cap into its post-2015 climate policies.
Furthermore, Ottawa increased its leniency towards the oilsands by exempting new in-situ (non-mining) oilsands projects in Alberta from the federal Impact Assessment Act. This exemption applies until Alberta's emissions cap is reached. Canada's latest National Inventory Report on greenhouse gas emissions reported record oilsands GHG emissions of 89 million tonnes in 2023, still 11 million tonnes shy of the 100 million tonne threshold.
Finally, we have today's proposed national cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta is apoplectic about the cap. But whether or not it's intentional, Premier Danielle Smith's outrage feeds into secessionist sentiment by seemingly misrepresenting the cap's impact on oil and gas production.
Smith and her environment minister use the work of the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer (PBO) to nurture their "Ottawa hates oil" narrative. They claim the officer's analysis of the cap's economic impact showed it "will cut oil and gas production by five per cent, or more than 245,000 barrels per day."
This is simply not true.
In fact, the PBO concluded that, with the cap, oilsands production "is projected to remain well above current levels" - 15 per cent higher than in 2022. The proposed federal emissions cap, like the Alberta NDP's cap of a decade ago, is higher than current oilsands emissions levels. The PBO concluded the proposed ceiling for oilsands emissions would be six per cent higher than 2022 emissions.
Ottawa's proposed cap, in fact, continues its decades-long support of the oilsands.
Myths are central to our being. When I tell my grandsons about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, I hope to inspire curiosity, imagination and interest in their grandmother's Irish heritage.
But in politics, fanciful stories can be dangerous. Some weaponize myths, using the fictions at their core to encourage followers to let falsehoods rule their behaviour. That seems to be playing out yet again in Alberta. We must demand better from the political class.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Vancouver Sun
9 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Another federal court blocks Trump's push to end birthright citizenship
BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. ____ Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .

CBC
10 minutes ago
- CBC
Insured losses from Jasper wildfire reach $1.3B, Insurance Bureau of Canada says
Social Sharing New wildfire damage estimates for Jasper continue to climb almost exactly one year after a wildfire destroyed about one-third of the townsite in July 2024. In a news release on Friday, the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) reported that insured losses from the Jasper wildfire have risen to around $1.3 billion. The figure, calculated by Catastrophe Indices and Quantification Inc., shows damage cost estimates have increased by $80 million since its last report in January. Aaron Sutherland, IBC's vice-president of the Pacific and Western regions, said damage estimates have risen significantly as reconstruction of the town drags on. He said the original insured losses estimates were around $900 million. IBC said the wildfire, which destroyed 358 homes and businesses in the town, is the second-costliest fire event in Canadian history. The 2016 Fort McMurray wildfires caused $6.2 billion in damages. It reported that the summer of 2024 was the most expensive on record in Canada for catastrophic weather events. Insured damage caused by severe weather in 2024 was over $9.2 billion for the first time in Canadian history. Residents frustrated with permitting delays The release also highlighted that permitting delays are slowing the rebuild process for residents. IBC stated that, so far, 56 structures destroyed by the fire have been approved for reconstruction, and only two of those buildings are currently undergoing actual reconstruction. Sutherland said some residents are beginning to get upset with the length of the permitting process for rebuilding. "We are hearing frustration start to grow … It's been 12 months, and we only have 15 per cent of properties approved for construction." WATCH | Data shows insured losses growing for Jasper residents: New data reveals Jasper wildfire insured losses just under $1.3 billion 2 hours ago New data shows the insured losses from last year's wildfire in Jasper, Alta., are now an estimated $1.3 billion. This is an $80-million increase from the six-month estimate made earlier this year. The July 24, 2024, wildfire destroyed much of the town, and it has yet to see major reconstruction. Sutherland said one of the key factors for why it is taking so long to rebuild is the complex soil remediation process required for land where properties burned down. However, Sutherland said the federal government has stepped in and is providing $5 million in funds to cover the unexpected cost of soil testing and removal, which he said could bolster reconstruction efforts. He emphasized that it is crucial for construction to begin as soon as possible, or residents may face weather-related delays.


CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Edmonton gets an AA+ in credit
Edmonton's been rated by a financial analytic agency, and the city is doing better than ever before. S&P Global, which assigns credit ratings to companies and countries, gave Edmonton an AA+, meaning that the city has strong 'financial health and creditworthiness.' In a release, S&P said it's a stable outlook and an increase from an AA rating in 2024. It improved, they said, based on the 'expectation that the city will maintain strong budgetary performance,' largely in part due to LRT construction projects winding down and stabilizing investments. 'Our upgraded AA+ rating speaks to the city's commitment to carefully and transparently managing taxpayer dollars,' said chief financial officer and deputy city manager Stacey Padbury in the release. The agency also noted that the city has an experienced management team, strong policies and detailed long-term financial plans. In a longer report, S&P wrote Edmonton's economy, albeit being largely in the energy sector, remains 'robust despite slower population growth.' 'We're continuing to use debt strategically to help us build and maintain the bridges, fire halls, LRT, libraries, roads and other infrastructure that Edmontonians need now as we grow,' Padbury said. The agency said this rating will further help Edmonton get approved for long-term borrowing from the province at favourable rates.