Wednesday's letters: Research cuts hurt Alberta economy
Article content
Yet again, Alberta divests from innovation and weakens industry. Does the government not want research or biotechnology sectors? There is a clear, unsettling pattern of Alberta defunding non-oil industry incentives — to its detriment.
In 2019, my friend almost moved to Calgary for a video game company, but Kenney scrapped the Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit. Now, my friend works for Meta and remains in Ontario. Alberta is left out of the benefits of his generous salary, all by its own doing. Imagine if he had the chance to grow a tech business in Alberta back then. Now, Smith is doing the same for medical research and biotech. The public must be aware that the government is disincentivizing non-oil industries and good opportunities for the province, and is keeping business away.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
21 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Government adviser slams Mark Carney for promoting ‘decarbonized' oil pipelines
OTTAWA — The co-chair of the federal government's climate action advisory group is slamming Prime Minister Mark Carney for using fossil fuel 'marketing speak' at Monday's summit with provincial leaders, when he endorsed the idea of building new pipelines for 'decarbonized' oil. Simon Donner, a climate scientist at the University of British Columbia who co-chairs the Liberal government's Net Zero Advisory Body, alleged the term is misleading because it falsely suggests there is a way to burn fossil fuels without creating greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. 'There is no such thing as decarbonized oil and gas. Oil contains carbon. It is high school chemistry. And they emit carbon dioxide when they're used,' Donner told the Star. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Prime Minister Mark Carney says there are discussions about building new pipelines to ship what he called decarbonized barrels of oil. But he says the range of the discussion is about more than just pipelines, involving the Western-Arctic corridor to move a broader number of products. (June 3, 2025 / The Canadian Press) 'The government is going to embarrass itself by using such industry and marketing speak.' Leaving a cabinet meeting on Parliament Hill Tuesday, Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson and Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin ignored questions about what the government means by 'decarbonized' oil. Carney made the statement at Monday's meeting with the premiers in Saskatoon, where his plan to fast-track development projects 'of national interest' took centre stage. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith — a staunch promoter of the fossil fuel sector who has long opposed federal climate policies like carbon pricing and regulations to limit emissions — said she was encouraged by the new government's approach. That included what she called a 'compromise' to allow new fossil fuel infrastructure to be built outside the current federal review process, which critics have blamed for blocking projects. Smith also said there was a 'grand bargain,' where the federal government would make it easier for the private sector to build new fossil fuel pipelines, while supporting plans under the 'Pathways Alliance' of oilsands companies to build a huge carbon capture project. During question period in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Hodgson referred to Smith's comments, describing the 'grand bargain' as a plan to 'build our energy superpower in an … environmentally responsible way, in consultation' with Indigenous Peoples. 'We support new pipelines if there is a national consensus,' Hodgson added. With billions of dollars in federal tax credits on the table, the Pathways carbon capture project is meant to reduce emissions from the extraction of fossil fuels, a process that is responsible for the largest share of any economic sector, as measured in Canada's most recent national tally of greenhouse gas pollution. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW In an emailed statement, Pathways president Kendall Dilling said the group is 'encouraged' by recent signs, including at this week's first ministers' meeting. 'We need every industry, including the oilsands, thriving and making vital contributions to the economy,' Dilling said. Janetta McKenzie, director of oil and gas at the Pembina Institute, a climate and environmental policy think tank, said Tuesday that it's important for Canada to press to reduce emissions from the production of oil, as greenhouse gas pollution from oil and gas extraction has increased by 70 per cent from 2005 to 2023, according to the national emissions tally. But with questions about when the Pathways project could come online, McKenzie said policies like carbon pricing and regulations to limit emissions are needed if high levels of production can continue without blowing Canada's effort to hit its emissions targets over the next decade. 'If we do want decarbonized barrels to be moving through this pipeline, there's something missing,' McKenzie said. The discussion highlights a political tightrope for the federal government on climate and energy policies, with pressure from environmentalists and those concerned about climate change to help the global crisis by reducing emissions, and demands from others to promote Canada's lucrative oil and gas sector. The industry generated $187 billion of economic activity in 2022, when it accounted for 30 per cent of Canada's total exports and employed almost 172,000 people, according to Natural Resources Canada. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW The government has said it remains committed to fighting climate change, but early signals of support for potential fossil fuel projects have prompted environmentalists to urge Carney to ' pick a lane ' between increased oil production and serious commitment to reducing emissions. Carney suggested last month that his government could change previous policies like the plan to create a regulatory cap to limit and start reducing emissions from the oil and gas sector to at least 19 per cent below 2019 levels between 2030 and 2032. Carney removed the national requirement for provinces and territories to have a consumer carbon price, while promising to strengthen industrial carbon pricing and other measures to ensure Canada hits its emissions targets. Canada is responsible for 1.41 per cent of global emissions in 2023, according to European Union figures. It has pledged to slash national emissions to 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and at least 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2035. Emissions were 8.5 per cent below 2005 levels in 2023, according to the most recent government tally. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 days ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's $10B lawsuit alleging US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. The case began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
National Observer
2 days ago
- National Observer
Mark Carney's grand climate bargain comes into view
In a political fight that seems destined to go many rounds, the first one went to the Prime Minister. He emerged from the high-stakes first ministers' meeting with many of Canada's premiers — including Conservative ones like Doug Ford — singing his praises. Even Smith had to concede that Carney's performance had won over the room, describing him as a 'dramatic improvement' over his predecessor. That's because Carney didn't take the bait that Smith so obviously laid out around pipelines. Instead, he smartly called the bluff she's been getting away with for years now. Smith has talked up and down about her government's commitment to decarbonizing oil production in Alberta, one that involves reaching net-zero province-wide by 2050. As you read the official communiqué from the meeting it becomes clear that this is where Carney is going to dig in for the real fight — and where Smith is least prepared to defend herself. 'First Ministers agreed that Canada must work urgently to get Canadian natural resources and commodities to domestic and international markets,' it reads, 'such as critical minerals and decarbonized Canadian oil and gas by pipelines, supported by the private sector, that provide access to diversified global markets, including Asia and Europe. First Ministers also agreed to build cleaner and more affordable electricity systems to reduce emissions and increase reliability toward achieving net zero by 2050.' No new pipelines without decarbonization, in other words. This immediately shifts the onus to the oil industry, which has been slow-playing its promised investment in carbon capture and storage technology for years now. If it doesn't finally move ahead there, the conversation around new pipelines is effectively over — and the blame will fall squarely on them. This also makes it more difficult for Smith and Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre to continue their recent campaign against industrial carbon pricing, given its obvious role in decarbonizing upstream oil and gas production. Not everyone is buying what Carney is selling here, mind you. Catherine Abreu, the director of the International Climate Politics Hub, described the idea of decarbonized oil and gas as 'a complete contradiction in terms, and a dangerous lie that Canadian government after Canadian government has tried to spin under the spell of industry lobbying.' This tracks with the broader environmental movement's longstanding skepticism of carbon capture and storage, which is informed by the underwhelming performance of early stage projects. It's worth noting, I think, that the performance of early-stage wind and solar were equally dispiriting. Technologies can and often do improve with time and scale. More to the point, if Canada is willing to sink billions in tax credits into EV factories in Ontario and Quebec, the same sort of opportunity should probably be afforded to Alberta's largest industry — especially if we're trying to prevent the Alberta separatist movement from escaping political containment. Yes, these large carbon capture and storage projects might fail, just as some of the battery plants in central Canada already seem to have. But carbon capture technology also might succeed — and if it does, that's an unalloyed boon to both our economy and environment. Either way, Carney isn't biting on Smith's demands for new pipelines 'in every direction.' Instead, he's moving the conversation onto political ground that's far more favourable to his government, both in terms of the raw politics and its enduring (if evolving) commitment to fighting climate change. He will, as Smith demanded, create the conditions for a more rapid assessment of infrastructure projects. But it's clear that one of those conditions will be the net-zero targets that Smith and Alberta's oil and gas industry have repeatedly committed themselves to. If they can't or won't reach them, they'll finally have to come out and say as much. Mark Carney's first meeting with Canada's premiers resulted in an agreement to pursue projects that export "decarbonized oil and gas". How that helped avoid a confrontation with Danielle Smith — and why it puts the pressure squarely on her. If I had to guess, the only new oil export project we'll end up seeing is another expansion of TMX, one that can be accomplished with upgrades to the existing line and some dredging of Vancouver's Burrard Inlet, an idea that has been mooted by Carney and supported by BC's Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix. That's in part because the combination of the increasingly imminent arrival of peak demand for oil will make new infrastructure projects like a revived Northern Gateway (which have to operate for decades to deliver an adequate economic return) a non-starter for the private sector. It's also because OPEC's declining interest in artificially supporting prices raises the prospect of another price war like the one in 2014 that devastated the Canadian oil patch. Carney knows all of this, and understands it better than any elected official in the country. His real interest, I suspect, is building the sorts of projects that will best position Canada in the low-carbon economy that so clearly lies ahead. But he also understands that getting into a pitched battle with Alberta by explicitly crushing its pipeline dreams gets in the way of that objective — and helps advance Smith's political agenda in the process. Sometimes, the best way to win a fight is by not fighting it at all.
