National Economy

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by casper

in the hope labour/materials are cheaper in the future. Building capital projects is just so expensive just now. Not certain I buy that.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

How can we be more dependent on oil than we already are? This stuff is already in everything and is the backbone of our entire economy!

The transition will happen, but we aren't there yet and I don't think we will be when we get a new pipeline or two built in the next 5 years.

Let's not put money in something that will make us more dependant to oil and instead do it in things that will permit us to diversify our exportations. If the private sector wants to waste money on a pipeline, let them do it. But the fact that they dont want to do it is a proof that they dont think it will end up being profitable, so they'll let the governments waste their money (and later complain that their taxes are too high...).

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Let's not put money in something that will make us more dependant to oil and instead do it in things that will permit us to diversify our exportations. If the private sector wants to waste money on a pipeline, let them do it. But the fact that they dont want to do it is a proof that they dont think it will end up being profitable, so they'll let the governments waste their money (and later complain that their taxes are too high...).

You didn't answer my question. How can we be more dependent on oil that we already are? This stuff is literally in everything you buy, and it's how everything you buy gets where you buy it. Green tech is nice, but it's not even close to replacing oil.

Like I said, the transition is coming, but I don't think we are going to have batteries powering planes, cargo ships, semi trucks, freight trains... any time soon. This certainly isn't going to be happening in India, Africa, South America... before it happens here, and I'd say we are MINIMUM 20 years away from the wholesale replacement of ICE with green tech here. China is the one to watch, they are already at the forefront of green tech, and I'm pretty confident they would be the #1 purchaser of oil from a new pipeline to the west coast in 10 years.

[casper]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Let's not put money in something that will make us more dependant to oil and instead do it in things that will permit us to diversify our exportations. If the private sector wants to waste money on a pipeline, let them do it. But the fact that they dont want to do it is a proof that they dont think it will end up being profitable, so they'll let the governments waste their money (and later complain that their taxes are too high...).

Short term problem is we are dependent on trade with the US. That is the major problem we need to solve today. Adding more pipeline capacity to the coast helps there.

Longer term we need to transition away from oil domestically as a fuel source. The rest of the world will eventually do the same. Some countries will do that more quickly than us other will be slower.

Oil and natural gas will still be around and needed for the chemical/fertilizer industry even after most of the world moves to cleaner energy sources over the next 100 years.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

You didn't answer my question. How can we be more dependent on oil that we already are? This stuff is literally in everything you buy, and it's how everything you buy gets where you buy it. Green tech is nice, but it's not even close to replacing oil.

Like I said, the transition is coming, but I don't think we are going to have batteries powering planes, cargo ships, semi trucks, freight trains... any time soon. This certainly isn't going to be happening in India, Africa, South America... before it happens here, and I'd say we are MINIMUM 20 years away from the wholesale replacement of ICE with green tech here. China is the one to watch, they are already at the forefront of green tech, and I'm pretty confident they would be the #1 purchaser of oil from a new pipeline to the west coast in 10 years.

Then this is a double question: how can we be more dependant on oil as a seller and how can we be more dependant as a user.

I was answering the first part of the question, and I will add that: we can be more dependant of oil as an export if we build more infrastructures for that, especially if that money could be used to invest to develop other exports and other markets.

How can we be more dependant on oil as a user? By not accelerating the decarbonization of the economy. By not promoting EV sales and not installing more charging stations. By not building HSR and public transit to give alternatives to users. By not investing in solar and wind power. Oil is easier, but it is a trap. Just like drugs; when you are using it, you are forgetting your other problems, but in the end you are just making them worst.

[Nouvellecosse]

In terms of oil consumption, it's obvious that if we invest a large sum into transport infrastructure for one energy source, we don't have that money to invest in something else like energy alternates. And that the sunk cost of large scale oil infrastructure investment would lower the logistic challenges, and therefore cost, of providing the product to consumers (assuming any of it were to go to the domestic consumer market). So the "being more dependent on it" wouldn't have to do with how much we currently use but rather how difficult it would be to transition to something else because the alternative would be less attractive by comparison. In other words, if taxpayers fund all or part of the infrastructure this would function as a type of subsidy.

And citing "all the things we currently use it for" isn't that relevant either because the transition away is about the volume we use rather than the number of applications. The same way that electricity, which is largely not fossil fuel-based in Canada, has been a part of the mix for many decades despite fossil fuels being dominant overall, it's obvious that fossil fuels will still be in the mix even after it's no longer dominant. The "transition away" part means it wouldn't be dominant; not that it wouldn't be used at all. So the existence of some things that are difficult or impossible to electrify isn't very relevant.

[Calgarian]

Building a pipeline to export oil will do nothing for EV sales in Canada, and China is already at the forefront of the EV revolution and they are who will likely be buying the oil. EVs are going to become more popular here as the technology gets better, exporting oil has nothing to do with it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Building a pipeline to export oil will do nothing for EV sales in Canada, and China is already at the forefront of the EV revolution and they are who will likely be buying the oil. EVs are going to become more popular here as the technology gets better, exporting oil has nothing to do with it.

EVs are only one aspect of the transition, and just because the transition will happen anyway doesn't mean having more or less investment in the transition wouldn't affect how quickly it happens. But setting that aside, and even if the pipeline only made Canada more dependent on oil as a seller rather than as a consumer, that doesn't make it a good taxpayer investment. That money can only be invested in one place at a time, and anything that does get the funds has to be weighed against anything else that could have gotten the funds and didn't. If someone wants to make the argument that it's still the best for other reasons such as the politics, then fine. But to portray the investment as being in some kind of vacuum and therefore has no effect on anything else including opportunity costs is just not a serious position.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

How can we be more dependent on oil than we already are? This stuff is already in everything and is the backbone of our entire economy!

Just so you know, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says that the oil and natural gas industry accounted for 3.8% of Canada's overall GDP in 2025. That's a low percentage and I wouldn't say it's the "backbone of our entire economy" based on that.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Just so you know, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says that the oil and natural gas industry accounted for 3.8% of Canada's overall GDP in 2025. That's a low percentage and I wouldn't say it's the "backbone of our entire economy" based on that.

Statistics Canada show just 56,263 employees working in oil and gas extraction in May 2026. It's not a growth industry for employment either, it's pretty much the same as 10 years ago, and it's now less than 0.3% of total employment. It's important in Alberta, obviously, with over 50,000 jobs.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Statistics Canada show just 56,263 employees working in oil and gas extraction in May 2026. It's not a growth industry for employment either, it's pretty much the same as 10 years ago, and it's now less than 0.3% of total employment. It's important in Alberta, obviously, with over 50,000 jobs.

O&G is the 4 sector after Health, Retail , Tech & Scientific and Construction.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Just so you know, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers says that the oil and natural gas industry accounted for 3.8% of Canada's overall GDP in 2025. That's a low percentage and I wouldn't say it's the "backbone of our entire economy" based on that.

When I say the backbone of the economy, I mean the product itself, not the industry. All of the products and people that move around the country and around the world do so because of transportation fuels refined from oil. Ships, trains, transport trucks use oil. The plastic in EVs comes from oil, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and millions of other products. This stuff is literally in everything! So the idea that this product will become irrelevant because of EVs is kinda nuts. Like I said, China is leading the EV charge and would happily buy all of our oil if we could get it to them.

[someone123]

The % of GDP argument is very limited and weak.

Industries can have huge employment and economic impact multipliers. They're different in terms of their contribution to increased purchasing power from abroad (oil exports being very good at this, and this is very important for Canada as we can't produce most types of modern goods or services domestically). The % of workers or value add in dollars from a good or service just reflects the market price and production, not how critical it is. After the agricultural revolution, the % of GDP and employment in farming dropped but that didn't make food less critical to humanity.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

When I say the backbone of the economy, I mean the product itself, not the industry. All of the products and people that move around the country and around the world do so because of transportation fuels refined from oil. Ships, trains, transport trucks use oil. The plastic in EVs comes from oil, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and millions of other products. This stuff is literally in everything! So the idea that this product will become irrelevant because of EVs is kinda nuts. Like I said, China is leading the EV charge and would happily buy all of our oil if we could get it to them.

How much oil is used for plastic, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and millions of other products, and how much oil is used for transportation?

I'll give you the answer: In 2022 Canadian demand of oil as fuel accounted for 81% (gasoline at 43%, distillates at 33%, and jet fuel at 5%), and industrial and petrochemical applications (asphalt, lubricants, waxes, paraffins, and the feedstocks for those "millions of other products" that you said) account for 19%. [source]

If we entirely somehow managed to switch fuel use over to electricity (which isn't realistic, I know) then we could cut our crude oil extraction by 80% and those other uses would be completely unaffected.

It's still not as big of a backbone as you think, and as transportation moves away from burning fossil fuels towards electrification, it becomes even less important and it can focus on the areas where there is no suitable substitute.

[whatnext]

To nobody’s surprise:

Unifor says Stellantis is mulling closure and sale of idled Brampton, Ont., plant
By The Canadian Press
Updated: August 14, 2026 at 3:26PM EDT

TORONTO — Unifor says Stellantis is considering the closure and sale of its Brampton, Ont., assembly plant, which has been idled since 2023.

The union says it received notice from the automaker on Wednesday that it was seriously evaluating the sale and closure.

The Brampton plant had been slated to be retooled for Jeep production, a process that began early in 2024 before the company paused the plan in early 2025. In October 2025, Stellantis announced it was moving production of the Jeep Compass slated for Brampton to the U.S., leaving the plant idled indefinitely…

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/com...losure-and-sale-of-idled-brampton-plant/

[James Bond Agent 007]

Forest fires are good for business!

Canadair water-bomber builder feels heat of demand as wildfires rage around the world

As Canada, the United States and Europe grapple with another brutal wildfire season, pressure is building on the manufacturer of the Canadair "Super Scooper" water bombers to increase production, and on the federal government to bulk order the planes.

Calgary-based De Havilland is taking the rare step of reviving production of the Canadair after acquiring the water bomber program. The planes had been built by Bombardier up until 2015.

The world-renowned aircraft are built by hand with the majority of assembly in Calgary, from a supply chain across the country. The revived production line was announced in 2022 and is beginning to produce results as the first two aircraft are taking shape and on schedule to be completed and delivered in early 2028.

The world wants more Canadian-made water bombers. Can Canada build them fast enough?

As France battled what President Emmanuel Macron called its worst wildfire crisis since the Second World War, his government faced swift criticism over whether it was prepared for the scale of the fires.

But another, less likely target soon came into view: Canada.

"We don't have enough Canadairs," said Didou Deyres, vice-president of the forest fire defence department in Le Porge, where 183 homes burned in late July after flames swept through the pine forests outside Bordeaux.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

EVs are only one aspect of the transition, and just because the transition will happen anyway doesn't mean having more or less investment in the transition wouldn't affect how quickly it happens. But setting that aside, and even if the pipeline only made Canada more dependent on oil as a seller rather than as a consumer, that doesn't make it a good taxpayer investment. That money can only be invested in one place at a time, and anything that does get the funds has to be weighed against anything else that could have gotten the funds and didn't. If someone wants to make the argument that it's still the best for other reasons such as the politics, then fine. But to portray the investment as being in some kind of vacuum and therefore has no effect on anything else including opportunity costs is just not a serious position.

I don’t think it has ever been true at anytime anywhere in the history at the world that investment is a zero sum game. Even if it were true at some point, with both the public and private sector investing mostly with borrowed money there is no obvious trade off.

The truth is that nobody has a viable alternative energy plan for the vast majority of fossil fuel needs (trucking, railways, aviation, shipping, military, backup power, fertilizer, plastics, petrochemicals) and even where alternatives exist (passenger cars, scooters, local delivery vehicles) uptake has been very uneven and very dependent export or import subsidies.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don’t think it has ever been true at anytime anywhere in the history at the world that investment is a zero sum game. Even if it were true at some point, with both the public and private sector investing mostly with borrowed money there is no obvious trade off.

It's absolutely true that if you invest a huge amount of money in one thing you can't simultaneously invest it in something totally different. That's not even disputable. Just because it isn't "zero sum" doesn't eliminate opportunity costs which is one of the most central concepts in economics.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The truth is that nobody has a viable alternative energy plan for the vast majority of fossil fuel needs (trucking, railways, aviation, shipping, military, backup power, fertilizer, plastics, petrochemicals) and even where alternatives exist (passenger cars, scooters, local delivery vehicles) uptake has been very uneven and very dependent export or import subsidies.

It's true that a lot of skeptics claim that none of the alternative plans are viable. That doesn't mean they're right. It's easy to look at challenging but perfectly feasible plans and naysay. And the fact that transitions take time isn't evidence of anything other than that opportunity costs are real. We've spent decades (not just in Canada but globally) investing in infrastructure for fossil fuel usage. Infrastructure like gas stations, oil takers, pipelines, and production facilities for fossil fuel consuming products, etc. Many of these would be stranded or under-used assets if a transition away happened too quickly. And of course the owners and investors of such assets are going to oppose that. But all of that prior investment is investment that doesn't need to happen now in order to consume fossil fuels while new investment is needed for something different which gives a cost penalty. Which shows that it isn't true that investing in one area has no consequences in other areas.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

EVs are only one aspect of the transition, and just because the transition will happen anyway doesn't mean having more or less investment in the transition wouldn't affect how quickly it happens. But setting that aside, and even if the pipeline only made Canada more dependent on oil as a seller rather than as a consumer, that doesn't make it a good taxpayer investment. That money can only be invested in one place at a time, and anything that does get the funds has to be weighed against anything else that could have gotten the funds and didn't. If someone wants to make the argument that it's still the best for other reasons such as the politics, then fine. But to portray the investment as being in some kind of vacuum and therefore has no effect on anything else including opportunity costs is just not a serious position.

Let's be honest here. We're building these pipelines to appease the Albertans. Sometimes there's a price for Confederation. Given the pace at which battery tech and manufacturing is going and the pace of electrification (especially in the Global South that the oilbros love to cite as their future growth markets), especially after this war, breaking even is probably a stretch. But whatever the price is, we may just have to pay it for national unity. So be it.

Saving grace. There will be some payback. And the government benefits from wider economic activity. So the loss will never be straight 100% of the cost. And whatever it is, it'll be spread out over decades.

What we should be really worried about? The massive liability in well cleanup that is slowly accumulating in Alberta. I can see a future where the Alberta government insists that the feds pay for the cleanup. Forget a carbon tax. I wish we'd force them to clean up.

[ssiguy]

If Alberta wants it's pipeline to Vancouver and BC & Ottawa are cool with it, then fine, knock yourself out. That said, it shouldn't get a dime of Ottawa's money. If Alberta wants it, then let Alberta pay for it.

Infrastructure, physical or social, is an investment in the long-term development of the economy and social needs. This pipeline does NOT qualify. Infrastructure should be an investment for 120 years, not just 20. By the time they finish this damn project, oil demand will be on a very steady decline. Yes, we will need oil for a very long time despite what Suzuki & Company like to espouse. From plastics to clothing to agriculture........oil will be with us for a very long time. The issue is not that we will need it but how much.

One of the ironic outcomes of the Iran war is that oil-loving Trump has helped jump start the transition away from which had been lagging since COVID. Oil will still be needed in 20 years but demand will decline and hence so will, relatively speaking, the price. Oil sands oil is expensive to produce and with suppressed prices it will become unprofitable. Oil investment is one of diminishing returns.

Smith may not like this reality but it's reality none the less and even pipeline supporting Albertans know it.