One way to dig ourselves out of the COVID-19 recession is to build more pipelines, some oil and gas executives say.
In an alternate reality, perhaps this statement would hold true. But the social realities of 2020 and the science of climate change tell us otherwise.
We are at a moment of intersecting and compounding crises of a scale that the world has never seen: the COVID-19 pandemic, the strong call for an end to racism and the ongoing climate crisis.
Continuing to build new pipelines at this moment would exacerbate these crises, bringing construction workers into remote areas with the possibility of spreading the virus to communities (often Indigenous) that may not have the health-care systems to respond to an outbreak.
Simultaneously, they would lock us into fossil fuel extraction and burning for decades to come.
Human rights violation
Foremost, though, is continuing to push pipelines through, as current Indigenous consent stands, would be a human rights violation.
Strong unceded nations such as the Wet’suwet’en, Secwepemc and Tsleil-Waututh, among many others, have made their opposition clear.
Particularly egregious is the suggestion that a new pipeline through northern Manitoba to Churchill will somehow be the solution to the recession. Such a project would undoubtedly face resistance comparable to that of the Trans Mountain expansion.
Protesters do a round dance at a January 2020 demonstration at Portage Avenue and Main Street in Winnipeg. (Jaison Empson/CBC)
With the price of oil reaching all-time lows over the past few months, only those with vested interests in resuscitating this dying industry would suggest that new pipelines are the path forward.
Right now, the Canadian oil industry is struggling and requires huge amounts of taxpayers’ dollars in subsidies and bailouts to stay afloat. There is no real plan to end these counterproductive subsidies.
The good news is that oil and gas workers don’t have to go down with this dying industry. Many workers from the sector are calling for more job options — other than the boom-and-bust oilpatch far from their families.
They are highly skilled and can transition these skills to sectors such as geothermal, solar, wind and biofuel energy if they get the opportunity.
Year after year, the clean energy sector has been outgrowing the rest of the economy, attracting billions of dollars in investment and creating more jobs than either the fossil fuel or mining sectors.
The Green New Deal is an example of a solid plan to respond to climate change and transition to a new low-carbon economy that leaves no one behind.
Stable income, stable jobs
Canadian workers deserve to have stable incomes and jobs — outside of a boom-and-bust economy — and to have a safe future.
Investing in low-carbon job creation — from health care to child care — is essential for our recovery from the pandemic and our response to climate change.
If we undertake a transition away from fossil fuels, Canada can transition in a way that puts workers and the quality of life for their families first (often referred to as a “just recovery”), prioritizing ecosystem replenishment and renewable energy while ensuring everybody gets their share.
It is also prudent to consider the social cost of carbon to Canada, to marginalized communities and to communities of colour. The social cost of carbon is a way to put a dollar figure to the damage that climate change is causing.
The consequences are summed up, in research from New York University, as “changes in energy demand (via heating and cooling); changes in agricultural output and forestry due to alterations in average temperature, precipitation levels, and CO2 fertilization; property lost to sea level rise; increased coastal storm damage; changes in heat-related illnesses; some changes in disease vectors (e.g. malaria and dengue fever); changes in fresh water availability; and some general measures of catastrophic and ecosystem impacts.”
Some studies also argue that common calculations of the social cost of carbon are too low, either because consequences are underestimated, or because government and/or businesses assume the benefits of changing the policy will be small.
What’s more, Canada is warming at two times the average pace globally — implying a higher social cost than the global average.
This part of the equation is often missing from pipeline debates.
In addition to the monetary considerations, it is also important to consider the emotional toll these devastating changes can have on individuals. The painful losses, dealing with insurance or replacing damaged items are not insignificant to peoples lives.
Canada as a leader
Canada is well-placed to be a leader in a post-fossil fuel economy and can get ahead of the curve if we start allowing innovative technologies to take their place.
It is time to invest in the bioplastic and biofuel industries, as well as Canadian solar, wind, tidal and geothermal industries, among others.
As governments gear up to invest in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, we can’t afford to lose sight of the larger crises of racism (and our reconciliation with the original peoples) and climate change.
We must treat citizens’ quality of life — not corporations’ profits — as our first priority as we make key decisions in this monumental time.
OTTAWA – Canada’s unemployment rate held steady at 6.5 per cent last month as hiring remained weak across the economy.
Statistics Canada’s labour force survey on Friday said employment rose by a modest 15,000 jobs in October.
Business, building and support services saw the largest gain in employment.
Meanwhile, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing experienced the largest decline.
Many economists see weakness in the job market continuing in the short term, before the Bank of Canada’s interest rate cuts spark a rebound in economic growth next year.
Despite ongoing softness in the labour market, however, strong wage growth has raged on in Canada. Average hourly wages in October grew 4.9 per cent from a year ago, reaching $35.76.
Friday’s report also shed some light on the financial health of households.
According to the agency, 28.8 per cent of Canadians aged 15 or older were living in a household that had difficulty meeting financial needs – like food and housing – in the previous four weeks.
That was down from 33.1 per cent in October 2023 and 35.5 per cent in October 2022, but still above the 20.4 per cent figure recorded in October 2020.
People living in a rented home were more likely to report difficulty meeting financial needs, with nearly four in 10 reporting that was the case.
That compares with just under a quarter of those living in an owned home by a household member.
Immigrants were also more likely to report facing financial strain last month, with about four out of 10 immigrants who landed in the last year doing so.
That compares with about three in 10 more established immigrants and one in four of people born in Canada.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 8, 2024.
The Canadian Institute for Health Information says health-care spending in Canada is projected to reach a new high in 2024.
The annual report released Thursday says total health spending is expected to hit $372 billion, or $9,054 per Canadian.
CIHI’s national analysis predicts expenditures will rise by 5.7 per cent in 2024, compared to 4.5 per cent in 2023 and 1.7 per cent in 2022.
This year’s health spending is estimated to represent 12.4 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. Excluding two years of the pandemic, it would be the highest ratio in the country’s history.
While it’s not unusual for health expenditures to outpace economic growth, the report says this could be the case for the next several years due to Canada’s growing population and its aging demographic.
Canada’s per capita spending on health care in 2022 was among the highest in the world, but still less than countries such as the United States and Sweden.
The report notes that the Canadian dental and pharmacare plans could push health-care spending even further as more people who previously couldn’t afford these services start using them.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 7, 2024.
Canadian Press health coverage receives support through a partnership with the Canadian Medical Association. CP is solely responsible for this content.
As Canadians wake up to news that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the president-elect’s protectionist stance is casting a spotlight on what effect his second term will have on Canada-U.S. economic ties.
Some Canadian business leaders have expressed worry over Trump’s promise to introduce a universal 10 per cent tariff on all American imports.
A Canadian Chamber of Commerce report released last month suggested those tariffs would shrink the Canadian economy, resulting in around $30 billion per year in economic costs.
More than 77 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S.
Canada’s manufacturing sector faces the biggest risk should Trump push forward on imposing broad tariffs, said Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters president and CEO Dennis Darby. He said the sector is the “most trade-exposed” within Canada.
“It’s in the U.S.’s best interest, it’s in our best interest, but most importantly for consumers across North America, that we’re able to trade goods, materials, ingredients, as we have under the trade agreements,” Darby said in an interview.
“It’s a more complex or complicated outcome than it would have been with the Democrats, but we’ve had to deal with this before and we’re going to do our best to deal with it again.”
American economists have also warned Trump’s plan could cause inflation and possibly a recession, which could have ripple effects in Canada.
It’s consumers who will ultimately feel the burden of any inflationary effect caused by broad tariffs, said Darby.
“A tariff tends to raise costs, and it ultimately raises prices, so that’s something that we have to be prepared for,” he said.
“It could tilt production mandates. A tariff makes goods more expensive, but on the same token, it also will make inputs for the U.S. more expensive.”
A report last month by TD economist Marc Ercolao said research shows a full-scale implementation of Trump’s tariff plan could lead to a near-five per cent reduction in Canadian export volumes to the U.S. by early-2027, relative to current baseline forecasts.
Retaliation by Canada would also increase costs for domestic producers, and push import volumes lower in the process.
“Slowing import activity mitigates some of the negative net trade impact on total GDP enough to avoid a technical recession, but still produces a period of extended stagnation through 2025 and 2026,” Ercolao said.
Since the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement came into effect in 2020, trade between Canada and the U.S. has surged by 46 per cent, according to the Toronto Region Board of Trade.
With that deal is up for review in 2026, Canadian Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Candace Laing said the Canadian government “must collaborate effectively with the Trump administration to preserve and strengthen our bilateral economic partnership.”
“With an impressive $3.6 billion in daily trade, Canada and the United States are each other’s closest international partners. The secure and efficient flow of goods and people across our border … remains essential for the economies of both countries,” she said in a statement.
“By resisting tariffs and trade barriers that will only raise prices and hurt consumers in both countries, Canada and the United States can strengthen resilient cross-border supply chains that enhance our shared economic security.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 6, 2024.
