Energy regulations applied to production in the West, versus consumption in Central Canada, highlight the blatant discrimination against Western interests, and by extension, the need for independence. It is another example of how policies are made by the unholy alliance between Quebec and the federal Liberal Party with either disregard or, too often, animus against Western interests.
First, there are layers of restrictive legislative and regulatory limits and requirements on production of oil in the West, but no limits on consumption in central Canada or elsewhere. This is strange as only 10% of emissions result from finding, developing, and producing oil versus 80% from burning it. Yes, the emissions from every barrel of oil consumed are 8 times the emissions from producing the same barrel. About 540,000 barrels of oil are delivered by PIPELINE (they are quite acceptable in Central Canada) from the West to Ontario and Quebec without any consideration of emissions, especially surprising given the disparity per barrel. And, as much of that oil is also refined at Sarnia or in Quebec, the additional 10% of emissions makes the ratio 9 to 1 from the same barrel of oil. Every Canadian knows that jet fuel, gasoline, diesel (for trucks and trains), manufacturing, and more occur in the heartland. If energy policies are really about emission reductions, the path is through central Canada, not the West. Why no similar punitive rules?
Second, the transportation of oil is deemed too risky for the West Coast, yet tankers from Alaska transport oil by tankers regularly, with only one incident decades ago caused by an inebriated captain running his American ship aground. Since then, the imperative of double hulls has minimized the already infrequent incidents. Tankers are the safest mode of oil transport, which partly explains their presence in the St. Lawrence River delivering oil to Central Canada, without public angst or restrictions. Again, if tankers are safe enough for the Saint Lawrence River, why are there limitations on Canada's West Coast?
Third, emission-intensive industries such as steel, batteries, and automobile manufacturing are subsidized by the federal government at the same time as production in the West is discouraged or disallowed. What could be the rationale other than negative animus?
Fourth, the layers of regulatory limitations, including but not limited to Bills C-68 and C-48, apply only to the West. It is significant that our new Prime Minister Mark Carney has not removed them, which is foreboding for the future. There must be a reason, despite the conjecture that the PM has become pipeline-friendly — after decades as one of, perhaps the primary leader of the United Nations determination to achieve Net Zero emissions? Unlikely, I trust him as much as Brookfield Asset shareholders after claiming he had no knowledge of its move to New York.
So why the antipathy towards Canada’s largest generator of foreign exchange, and potentially the strongest strategic offset to Trump’s determination to make America great again by damaging other countries by way of tariff policies? The strongest hostility is from Quebec, which financially benefits the most — more than $13 BILLION in 2024, mostly Alberta-financed equalization.
How can this emissions fixation, if sincere, ignore the Central Canadian contribution of 80% to 90% of emissions along the chain? Even ideologues can count. Pipelines moving oil west elicit national divisive debates and rancour, while challenges to Lines 5 and 9 (which feed oil to Central Canada) received federal government support. No tankers in the Pacific Ocean, but welcome in the St. Lawrence River.
The real reason, of course, is the federal government can kick us around with impunity. The elder Trudeau’s National Energy Program confiscated oil revenues to subsidize gasoline costs in Central Canada and tried to push the industry onto northern federal lands.
Canada’s pretense of democracy in a federation (versus a unitary country), with an unbalanced and emasculated Senate, has enshrined our colonial stature for 120 years since 1905 when Saskatchewan and Alberta joined the federation. The inevitable independence initiatives, relatively mild to date versus Quebec (which has major influence on Ottawa), are gaining support as our only solution. More third-tier Western citizens have had enough of the futility of meaningful participation in the governance of Canada.
Two very divergent energy policy frameworks and tight control of the West continue. Pipelines, albeit strategically and financially important, are but symptoms of much larger and chronic shortcomings of a functioning federal state that requires regional representation and concomitant checks and balances.
Those who settled our two provinces came seeking freedom and self-determination. We owe it to them, and even more so our progeny, to achieve those fundamentals of democracy.
How could it be otherwise?
