Showing posts sorted by date for query NDP PARTY OF OIL WORKERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query NDP PARTY OF OIL WORKERS. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, November 09, 2024

AIMCo upheaval resurrects questions over future of proposed Alberta pension plan

AIMCo's 11-person board, CEO and three executives were dismissed over the Government of Alberta's frustration with increasingly high costs and over-reliance on third-party money managers

“To suddenly dismiss all these people, I can’t explain it , the current reasons just don’t hold water, they’re just not credible.”

Author of the article:
By Matt Scace
Published Nov 08, 2024
Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner revealed Thursday the entire leadership of the Alberta Investment Management Corp. was dismissed. The move is unrelated to the proposed Alberta Pension Plan, he said Friday 
HE LIES, THEY NEED AIMCO FOR THEIR ALBERTA PENSION SCHEME
. David Bloom/Postmedia file

The mass overhaul of leadership at the Alberta Investment Management Corp. will likely raise new questions about the provincial government’s proposal to implement an Alberta pension plan which, if approved by Albertans and the province, would likely be managed by the Crown investment corporation.
Article content

The Alberta government on Thursday dismissed the $169-billion public pension fund’s 11-person board, its CEO and three executives, citing frustration with increasingly high costs and AIMCo’s over-reliance on third-party money managers. On Friday it appointed Ray Gilmour, a longtime government bureaucrat, as interim CEO.

The province’s extraordinary intervention into the arms-length pension fund manager resurrected questions around potential plans to put a provincial pension to a referendum — an idea that has gone dormant after receiving wide disapproval in late 2023. Finance Minister Nate Horner said Friday the upheaval at AIMCo has “nothing to do” with it being the potential manager.

“This move surely does not come across as something that creates a lot of confidence in the Alberta government. If anything, this is just another nail in the coffin if that’s what they’re trying to do — I don’t know. It’s all very strange,” Keith Ambachtsheer, director emeritus of the International Centre for Pension Management at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, said of the potential Alberta Pension Plan.
Article content


AIMCo, the sixth-largest pension fund in Canada, is responsible for overseeing the nearly $24 billion Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and has a mandate to operate independently from the government — though the law defining its mandate allows for greater government involvement than is available to the federal government in relation to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The now-dismissed board members were all appointed by the governments of former premier Jason Kenney and current Premier Danielle Smith.

AIMCo has been presented as one of top potential investment managers for a provincial pension plan in the event it was approved via referendum, as outlined in a 2023 report prepared by Lifeworks analyzing the considerations involving a potential provincial pension plan. That report argued Alberta was entitled to 53 per cent of the national retirement plan’s assets, worth about $334 billion, a number that’s been rebuffed by the CPPIB and others.

Keeping assets in the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board — the least-expensive option available — was also considered in the report, however that option presents serious challenges because it would require approval from several provincial governments.

The Lifeworks report suggested amending legislation to assert AIMCo’s operational independence in the event it became responsible for an Alberta Pension Plan’s assets.

Confidence in AIMCo at risk, expert says

The province’s offensive on the issue came to a halt late in 2023, as Premier Smith has said the province needs an agreed-upon estimate on Alberta’s entitlement before forging ahead.

“(The Alberta Pension Plan) has completely dropped off the political agenda,” said Duane Bratt, a political science professor at Mount Royal University. “Now it’s going to go right back on the agenda.”

Thursday’s decision will undermine confidence in AIMCo over the short-term and thus its ability to manage an in-province pension plan, Bratt said, but public sentiment could change over the long run if the corporation stabilizes.

“Maybe they think by the time that they put this to a referendum, let’s say in a year’s time, maybe AIMCo’s ship will have righted itself because of the actions that were taken … I don’t know. But AIMCo is connected to the APP,” Bratt said.

Ambachtsheer said he’s perplexed by the overhaul, adding the government has left numerous questions unanswered.

“To suddenly dismiss all these people, I can’t explain it,” he said. “The current reasons just don’t hold water, they’re just not credible.”

Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi said the mass dismissals “leads to a real drop in public confidence in the work they’re doing.

“This action should mean that any talk of the vastly unpopular Alberta pension plan should be dead now. It should be done, because it’s very clear that the government has admitted that they have no idea how to manage people’s pensions,” Nenshi said in an interview.

Nenshi said the issues at AIMCo, as outlined by the province, do not come as a surprise, but he takes issue with the government’s approach to making changes at the corporation. “We’ve known all this is going on for some time, so how did the government take its eye off the ball so much that they have to take this kind of drastic action instead of managing the process as any normal, sane shareholder would do?”

Money manager’s interim CEO a longtime public servant

AIMCo’s interim CEO, Gilmour, was touted as a dedicated public servant. He has commissioner of corporate services for the City of Medicine Hat and has a background in the banking and financial services industry, according to a profile on the C.D. Howe Institute’s website. (Horner will serve as director and chair of AIMCo for the next month until a new chair is appointed.)

Gilmour has served in executive councils under ex-premiers Rachel Notley and Kenney, and currently under Smith, spanning several ministries including finance, intergovernmental relations, infrastructure and municipal affairs.

Horner’s office declined an interview request on Friday.

Meanwhile, Alberta’s lieutenant governor also approved on Thursday the incorporation of a provincial corporation “for the purpose of managing and investing all or a portion of Crown assets.”


This move is not related to the government’s decision to axe AIMCo’s board and CEO, Justin Brattinga, press secretary for Horner, wrote in an email to Postmedia.

“The corporation is a preliminary step in our work to grow the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and as Minister Horner said we will have more to say on that before the end of the year,” Brattinga wrote. “The establishment of the corporation is not related to the actions taken in regards to AIMCo.”

Article content

Teachers’ Retirement Fund says pensions ‘remain secure’

The Alberta Teachers’ Retirement Fund on Friday told members in a statement that “their pensions remain secure” and that nothing at AIMCo to date has concerned it about the status of its investments — though it has raised issued with regards to costs at AIMCo with the investment manager and the province.

“We look forward to working with Treasury Board and Finance and being part of determining the appropriate path forward,” it wrote

The Alberta Federation of Labour said Albertans “deserve answers” on the government’s decision.

“Precipitous actions like this do not inspire confidence that the UCP can be trusted with the retirement savings of hundreds of thousands of Albertans, or that they can be trusted to successfully and safely run an Alberta-only alternative to the CPP,” wrote Gil McGowan, AFL president and former Alberta NDP leadership hopeful.

In Ottawa, federal NDP MP Heather McPherson called the move “another step to pull Alberta out of the Canada Pension Plan” while federal Minister of Labour and Seniors Steve MacKinnon called the province’s moves “harebrained schemes coming out of Alberta” and said the CPP has a “sterling” reputation.


— With files from Matthew Black


UCP Fires Board and Top Executives Managing Public Pensions

Shock announcement raises questions about what Danielle Smith plans for workers’ retirement savings.

Finance Minister Nate Horner will replace the AIMCo board until a new slate of directors can be found. Photo by Jeff McIntosh, the Canadian Press.

Yesterday Alberta Politics

With its surprise decision to cashier the entire board and the top executive of the supposedly independent Alberta Investment Management Corp., we see once again that the United Conservative Party government is determined to control everything, everywhere, all at once.

And if you’re an Albertan, that includes your retirement savings in the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund.

Indeed, we can be certain this shocking announcement has something to do with that scheme, because chronic underperformance by AIMCo, as the provincial Crown investment corporation is commonly known, has been a frequent target of critics of the UCP’s planned pension grab.

Under the headline “Restoring confidence in AIMCo,” the government said in a terse and unexpected news release Thursday that “after years of AIMCo consistently failing to meet its mandated benchmark returns, the minister of finance will be making changes to restore confidence in Alberta’s investment agency.”

But why now?

The Tyee is supported by readers like you Join us and grow independent media in Canada


The release complained about a 96-per-cent increase in management fees at AIMCo between 2019 and 2023 and a 29-per-cent increase in the number of employees while the Crown corporation managed a smaller percentage of funds internally — although the news release made no effort to explain exactly what that last point meant.

“Alberta’s government has decided to reset the investment corporation’s focus,” the news release said mildly. “All board appointments have been rescinded and a new board will be established after a permanent chair is named.” That, according to the release, is supposed to take place within 30 days.

“In the interim, president of treasury board and Minister of Finance Nate Horner has been appointed the sole director and chair for AIMCo, effective immediately” — which is not really reassuring for a supposedly arm’s length company managing $169 billion in pension investments.

Notwithstanding the 30-day promise, a cabinet order set Horner’s term as chair of the AIMCo Board to run until the end of September 2025.


Accusing the UCP of wanting to control everything, everywhere, all at once was a clever tribute to the 2022 comedy-drama movie of the same name first used by NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir last spring to describe the UCP fiddling with its own fixed election date law to give itself a little extra time in office.

“Danielle Smith said during the election that Albertans were her bosses,” added Rachel Notley, who was leader of the Opposition at the time, “but it is clear now that she intends to be the boss of everyone.”

Those lines could certainly be applied with similar effect to Thursday’s bombshell.

A comprehensive article in the Globe and Mail revealed that in addition to the 10 board members referred to but not named in the news release, CEO Evan Siddall and three other unnamed executives had been canned.

Siddall, who was appointed CEO on July 1, 2021, with a mandate to turn the company around after its big trading losses during the pandemic, had been the long-time president and CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. Judging from his Wikipedia biography he seems to have attended meetings of the World Economic Forum and the Bilderberg Group, which must have made certain MAGA-minded members of the UCP caucus feel as if they had ants in their pants.

Or maybe it was Siddall’s decision to let Alberta’s teachers have a limited role in the management of their pension fund, which had been grabbed by the UCP in 2019 and handed over to AIMCo amid great controversy. Indeed, some of those additional pension employees the government was complaining about likely came from the management arm of the teachers’ pension fund.

Whatever happened, NDP finance critic Court Ellingson told the Globe that Siddall and some of his colleagues showed up at a public meeting of the standing committee on the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund on Wednesday and there was no hint anything was afoot.

Ellingson said in a statement sent to media Thursday afternoon that firing the entire board and the CEO is too drastic a measure for this just to be about AIMCo salaries “when this government passed legislation to remove the caps on salaries for board members.”

“The premier herself appointed some of these AIMCo directors,” he said. “The finance minister himself said this spring that AIMCo was doing a good job.”

He also argued that even in a temporary role, having a partisan politician at the helm of a supposedly arm’s length agency investing 375,000 Albertans’ retirement savings is troubling.

It certainly seems to have unsettled some in investment circles. The Globe quoted the director emeritus of the International Centre for Pension Management at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, Keith Ambachtsheer, saying the move “should be construed as a government takeover of [an] asset pool that belongs to the people of Alberta.”



Will Danielle Smith Use Albertans’ Pensions to Bail Out Big Oil?read more

Ellingson argued “AIMCo’s poor returns are a clear reflection of the UCP’s incompetence.”

“We have raised concerns about their poor returns for years, and we’ve noted AIMCo’s returns have been below that of the Canada Pension Plan,” he said. “Until now, the UCP even proposed using AIMCo to manage the proposed Alberta Pension Plan. Any such APP scheme should now be completely off the table.”

Count on it, though, the opposite is true. If this indicates anything, it’s that the UCP still covets the CPP’s investment funds and saw AIMCo’s returns as an impediment to that ambition. Nor does the party value independent minds in positions of oversight.

Interestingly, another Order in Council published Thursday “approves the incorporation of a provincial corporation for the purpose of managing and investing all or a portion of Crown assets.” 


David J. Climenhaga is an award-winning journalist, author, post-secondary teacher, poet and trade union communicator. He blogs at AlbertaPolitics.ca. Follow him on X @djclimenhaga.



Calgary·Analysis

After changes at AIMCo, United Conservatives now own successes and failures of fund giant

Ousting board and CEO a blow to agency's independence: top pension fund analyst

Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner became the one-man board of Alberta Investment Management Corp. this week, and promptly fired its chief executive. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

When Alberta's public pension manager lost $2.1 billion in a risky bet on market volatility in 2020, little of the scorn or blame fell at the feet of then-premier Jason Kenney or his government.

Why? The investment decisions at the Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) are independent of the government. Cabinet's lone role is to appoint directors to the fund manager's board and let the experts invest, trade and (ideally) grow the funds.

The teachers group whose pension funds the Kenney government transferred to AIMCo's control was understandably frustrated their savings' destiny was tied to the downs and ups of the wealth giant in that moment, but the teachers' union wasn't lobbing rhetorical grenades at the premier for the loss itself. 

That distance between the politicians and the pension investors shrank substantially this week, when Finance Minister Nate Horner took the unprecedented step to remove the entire independent board of AIMCo, name himself the temporary one-man board and fire CEO Evan Siddall.

All future rhetorical grenades (and bouquets) can be addressed to the finance minister and Premier Danielle Smith.

Ready, AIMCo, fired

Horner has pledged to appoint a new board within a month, but in the meantime he appointed as interim CEO Ray Gilmour, a veteran senior provincial bureaucrat who lacks experience in the world of big-fund management, but did work in Alberta banks more than two decades ago.

The Smith government pitched the move as "restoring confidence in AIMCo" after underperforming financial results and rising costs. Sebastien Betermier, a leading analyst of pension funds, doesn't see this as confidence-building in the agency's ability to make the sophisticated, long-term investment decisions they need to.

"To me it goes the exact opposite way," Betermier, the executive director of the International Centre for Pension Management, told CBC News. "That goes against the whole independence, the ability of the funds to work at an arm's length from government."

When the province created AIMCo in 2007, the then-Tory government specifically barred MLAs from serving on the fund manager's board, to ensure independence. A cabinet order this week temporarily undid that rule.

Betermier, a finance professor at McGill University, said this seemingly abrupt turmoil could also give pause to other major investors or firms AIMCo partners with on large-scale investments. The fund currently co-owns Yorkdale Mall in Toronto with a major property developer (itself owned by an Ontario pension manager), and has been building thousands of U.K. rental apartments in a joint venture with a British firm.

a mall in the dark
The two-million-square-foot Yorkdale mall in Toronto, one of Canada's largest, is co-owned by AIMCo as part of the fund's diversified portfolio of assets. (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press)

"When you see moves like this, where the government can come in any day and dismiss the whole board, that sends shivers in your ability to implement such projects going forward," Betermier said.

Horner expressed some disappointment in recent failures by AIMCo to meet growth benchmarks, but said cost growth was the main reason behind the move. In announcing the board's sacking, his office noted that over the last four years, AIMCo has hiked its staff expenses by 71 per cent and its employee numbers by 29 per cent.

"We want them to be a low-cost provider," Horner told reporters.

Unmentioned in that news release is that, thanks in part to the shift of teachers' pension funds to AIMCo's portfolio, the agency's total managed assets rose over that stretch to $166 billion from $115 billion, a 44 per cent increase. (Instead, the release noted that more funds are being managed by external groups than previously.)

Does an investment firm guarantee itself better returns by slashing its workforce and hiring lower-paid executives?

Short-term frustration with costs can overlook the time it takes to develop an international investment strategy over a longer term, Betermier said.

Of the country's major public-sector pension managers known as the Maple 8 — including the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board and the independent investment arms of the British Columbia and Quebec governments — it's the youngest, only launching in 2008.

It's lately been playing catch-up to its peers to establish more international offices, including New York this year, its first Asian office in Singapore last year, and a recent plan by Siddall to more than double its presence in London.

"It's a project where you can generate a lot of value for pensioners, but you need to give it time," said Betermier. "One of the big risk factors is precisely government interference, when you come right in the middle of an initiative and you undo it."

a men gestures while speaking
Evan Siddall led AIMCo for three years before being terminated. The former investment banking executive and head of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation arrived at AIMCo after major investment losses tarnished the agency's reputation. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

Horner isn't alone in his frustration with the costs. Deb Gerow, president of the Alberta Retired Teachers Association, said expenses and management fees "have been a concern for us," compared to the educator retirement fund's smaller previous operations.

But is the wholesale sacking of a board the solution to a minister's balance-sheet frustrations? 

"It struck me as a rather extreme reaction given the problems the government identified," said Bob Baldwin, a veteran pension consultant who has chaired the C.D. Howe Institute's pension policy council.

It makes him wonder what other considerations were behind the Smith government's takeover of AIMCo leadership.

Horner and his office have said this decision has nothing to do with the UCP's consideration of removing Alberta from the Canadian Pension Plan (and possibly putting AIMCo in charge of an Alberta pension mega-fund). Nor, they say, does this have anything to do with the premier's ambition, reiterated at last weekend's UCP convention, to balloon the $23-billion Heritage Savings Trust Fund into a $250-billion fund by mid-century.

There is certainly a desire by Horner and the premier to change the focus and approach of the Crown corporation that currently stewards Alberta's long-term savings account and the retirement funds of thousands of residents. It's not clear how they want that approach to change, aside from producing wealth management on a leaner budget.

And what happens to AIMCo's investments in the coming years will depend on the quality of the leaders Smith's cabinet selects to run the agency, who will undoubtedly be more aligned with the desired directions of Horner and the premier than a group appointed over several years by both UCP and NDP premiers.

Success will be attributed to this government's actions. So will future losses and failures.

It's the same way that the Smith government has tied Alberta Health Services' outcomes to their own decisions, by ousting the entire board in 2022 and then redesigning the entire system's structure. 

They dismantled and remade it, and will politically own whatever comes next.

AIMCo expansion, Alberta's investment 

focus were sources of tension before purge, 

sources say

Pension veterans say there was more going on behind the scenes than scrutiny of costs


A longtime pension executive described the blanket dismissals as a “shock.”


Author of the article:
Barbara Shecter
Published Nov 08, 2024 • 
Alberta Investment Management Corp. chief executive Evan Siddall in Calgary, Alta., 2022. Alberta has relieved Siddall of his duties. Photo by Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press files

The decision by Alberta Investment Management Corp. (AIMCo) to launch operations abroad as it chased higher returns and the extent to which the investment manager should invest in Alberta were sources of tension with the provincial government in the months leading up to Alberta’s stunning decision this week to remove AIMCo’s entire board of directors and chief executive, according to several people familiar with what transpired.

In a news release Thursday, the Alberta government said the “reset” at AIMCo was driven by rising costs at the Crown corporation, including third-party management fees and salaries and benefits that were not matched by a corresponding return on investment.

But three pension veterans familiar with events said there was more going on behind the scenes than scrutiny of costs.

One of them described the stated rationale of costs as “smoke and mirrors” for a deeper agenda to reshape AIMCo.

“Cost-cutting is not a big issue here,” said the source, who asked not be identified because of sensitivities around recent events. “This is a deeply political situation.”

This is a deeply political situation

Another of the sources, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, pointed to efforts to expand investment capabilities by hiring expensive investment managers and opening offices in New York and Singapore this year and last as a point of tension.

But others said that was just one piece of the puzzle, and suggested the government is focused on driving investments in Alberta.

The shakeup at AIMCo comes as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith prepares to unveil her government’s plan to boost the size of the AIMCo-managed Heritage Savings Trust Fund, which, according to its website, “produces income to support government programs 

In February, Smith said she envisioned the fund, which was established in 1976 to collect a portion of Alberta’s non-renewable resource revenue to invest in projects that would improve life in Alberta and diversify the Alberta economy, to grow much larger by 2050 than the nearly $24 billion value it had June 30.

The Alberta government also announced plans last year to pull out of the Canada Pension Plan, and take its share of the giant fund with it, but that effort appears to have moved to the back burner.

“We’ll be releasing our plan to grow the Heritage Savings Trust Fund to $250 billion by the end of the year, with a focus solely on getting the best returns for Albertans,” Justin Brattinga, senior press secretary at Alberta’s Ministry of Treasury Board and Finance, said Friday.

Asked whether the government had concerns about AIMCo’s direction and wanted more investments, operations and jobs in Alberta, Brattinga did not directly address the question.

“AIMCo’s mandate is to be a low-cost investor,” he said. “Our concern was with the rapid and unacceptable increases to their operating costs without a corresponding increase in returns for their clients.”

On Friday, the Alberta government announced that its most senior public servant, deputy minister of executive council Ray Gilmour, would be interim CEO, put in place to “stabilize operations and ensure smooth operations during the transition period.”

That followed Thursday afternoon’s bombshell announcement that the government had rescinded all board directorships at AIMCo. Nate Horner, Treasury Board President and Finance Minister, said he had also relieved AIMCo CEO Evan Siddall of his duties.

Horner has been installed as chair and sole director for the next 30 days until a replacement can be found.

One source said they believed the government has found some support for its approach in a client group still reeling from a loss of trust following AIMCo’s stunning $2.1 billion loss in 2020 on a volatility trading strategy, when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared.

The Alberta Teachers’ Retirement Fund, one of the investment manager’s 30 or so clients, told members that the issue of costs had been raised with both the government and AIMCo prior to this week’s purge.

“Nothing that has happened with regard to the changes at AIMCo thus far has caused us concern about the status of our investments,” the ATRF said in a note to members posted on its website Thursday. “At the same time, we have in the past raised issues regarding costs at AIMCo with both the Government of Alberta and with AIMCo.”

The retirement fund for Alberta’s teachers was forced through legislation to turn management of its funds over to AIMCO in 2019. It was a contentious start for the relationship. Unable to reach an agreement on terms of the new arrangement, the outcome was imposed through a government order

Despite the assertions of the teachers’ retirement fund and the government, industry sources say AIMCo’s costs are in line with industry standards, and that returns slightly below benchmarks reflected the risk profile of the investment managers clients rather than performance issues relative to peers.

AIMCo posted an overall return of 6.9 per cent in 2023, despite challenges in its real estate portfolio. The asset manager, which invests on behalf of pension, endowment, insurance and government clients in Alberta, ended the year with $160.6 billion in assets under management. The return, though positive, fell below AIMCo’s benchmark return of 8.7 per cent.

A longtime pension executive described the blanket dismissals as a “shock.”

Jim Leech, who ran the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board for six years, said Friday he doesn’t believe the wholesale clear-out of the boardroom and the dismissal of senior executives including the CEO can be solely about “a few basis points of performance or costs.”



AIMCo board firing comes as fund has ‘a lot

 of unhappy clients’: columnist
BNNBLOOMBERG
November 08, 2024 

The Alberta government’s sudden decision to dismiss the entire board and CEO of the Alberta Investment Management Corp. (AIMCo) comes at a time when a number of the pension fund’s clients are “unhappy,” according to a business columnist with The Globe and Mail.

“I’m not actually completely surprised by this,” Andrew Willis told BNN Bloomberg’s Amber Kanwar in an interview Friday morning.

“AIMCo has been controversial for a couple of years and their performance hasn’t been that great… there is an underlying reason for this rather abrupt action from the government and it’s to do with the ability to keep these clients happy – there is a lot of unhappy clients at AIMCo.”

Willis said that what makes AIMCo unique as a fund is its structure as a crown corporation that manages capital for more than a dozen different groups in Alberta.

“That includes the heritage fund, but it also includes a number of different public sector pension plans,” he explained.

“The university professors in Alberta, for example, AIMCo runs their money, and over the last few years, those professors have been complaining about performance and they’ve been withdrawing their funds from AIMCo and giving them to other outside managers.”

In a statement on Thursday, the province’s Finance Minister Nate Horner said the decision to fire the fund’s board came down to management fees that were too high and a consistent failure to meet benchmark returns.

The Canadian Press reported on Thursday that Horner told reporters following the announcement that he had been watching AIMCo’s performance closely for some time and determined that necessary changes to the fund weren’t going to happen without a “major reset.”

Willis said that despite the government’s suggestion that the fund has been underperforming, their recent returns, though not outstanding, have been on par with most other large Canadian pension plans.

“There wasn’t a complete outlier in performance, they weren’t ahead of anybody else… but they certainly weren’t laggers,” he said.

AIMCo had encountered some setbacks in recent years related to volatility during the pandemic, Willis noted, but he said the fund’s management, led by chief executive officer Evan Siddall, had created a “credible turnaround plan” to resolve those issues.

“Their costs have been rising, they’re staffing up, they want to do more global investing, they want to get into more alternatives – that takes people, so that’s why the headcount was rising, and that’s one of the things that’s upset the government,” he said.
Ray Gilmour named interim CEO

Horner will act as AIMCo’s sole director and chair for the time being until a new chair is appointed, which the Alberta government says will happen within 30 days. The province has also appointed an interim CEO: Deputy Minister of Executive Council Ray Gilmour.

Willis said that Gilmour has “no investment management experience,” but is “clearly a trusted pair of hands” within the Alberta government.

He added that aside from who will ultimately run the fund, the biggest question AIMCo faces going forward relates to its mandate.


“Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta has made it clear she wants to see more investment in Alberta from public money. She made the bid to get Alberta’s share of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) managed in Alberta too,” Willis said.

“So, Danielle Smith I think looks at AIMCo as a bit of a cookie jar. The mandate that I think they might go to is something like what you’ve got in Quebec with the (Caisse de dépôt et placement), where there’s a mandate to primarily invest in Alberta, and I think that would be really dangerous.”

Alberta is Canada’s largest oil and gas producer, and while the province has made inroads in diversifying its economy in recent years, Willis said “there’s only one big industry, and it’s fossil fuels.”

“So, if you’re overweighting towards that industry, that’s a dangerous thing for Alberta pensioners,” he said.

With files from The Canadian Press



Tuesday, June 11, 2024

PAKISTAN



THE RISE AND FALL OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

Karachi’s labour uprising serves as a testament to the power of organised labour, in stark contrast to Pakistan’s trade union landscape today. What fed this movement and what led to its downfall?

LONG READ
Published June 9, 2024 

The Bab-e-Mazdoor Shaheed Qabristan monument stands at the entrance of Frontier Colony, a predominantly Pashtun, lower-income neighbourhood within Karachi’s largest industrial area, SITE. Erected by the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) and the Shaheed Mazdoor Yadgari Committee, the monument pays solemn tribute to the workers killed during the June 1972 labour movement.

On June 7, 1972, police opened fire on unarmed workers protesting overdue wages against the management of a textile mill. The next day, during the funeral procession of one of the slain workers, the crowd’s attempt to reach the Governor’s House escalated into a protest, resulting in further violence and fatalities at Banaras Chowk. Several more workers lost their lives. This brutal two-day confrontation sent shockwaves throughout Karachi, the industrial heart of Pakistan, leading to a citywide strike that halted economic production for 13 days.

The uprising occurred amid the political turbulence following East Pakistan’s secession to become Bangladesh just a year earlier. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s newly formed government, with the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) advocating socialist ideals, was suddenly at odds with the working class it claimed to champion.

In a national address on February 10, 1972, Bhutto, then both president and martial law administrator, promised new benefits for workers but also issued a stern warning against the tactics of “gherao [encirclement]” and “jalao [arson]” used to pressure industrial management. “The strength of the street will be met by the strength of the state,” Bhutto declared. By June, his government had acted on this warning.

Karachi’s industrial sector was famously brought to a standstill in June 1972 following clashes between the police and disgruntled labourers. This triggered the emergence of Karachi’s labour uprising, which serves as a testament to the power of organised labour, in stark contrast to Pakistan’s trade union landscape today. What fed this movement and what led to its downfall?

The 1972 labour movement that disrupted Karachi’s industrial sector is a significant chapter in Pakistan’s political and labour history. This piece draws on interviews with Bawar Khan, a prominent militant figure in the movement, and others, along with a review of existing literature, to reconstruct the events of those critical days. It explores the rise of the movement, its successes and struggles, and its lasting impact on the fight for workers’ rights in Pakistan.

A NETWORK OF LABOUR SOLIDARITY

Like thousands of others from various parts of the then-North West Frontier Province (NWFP, now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), teenaged Bawar arrived in Karachi from Swat in the mid-1960s, seeking opportunities in the city’s booming textile industry.

“School wasn’t for me,” he admits with a smile. “So, I ran away from Swat to Karachi, twice actually. Finally, my father convinced me to stay and find work here.”

His first job was at Hafiz Textile in the SITE area. Back then, mill owners personally interviewed potential employees. When the mill owner saw Bawar, he remarked, “You seem quite young.” Bawar’s quick reply — “Young, but I eat too!” — earned him a smile and a chance. Those nine months at Hafiz Textile were Bawar’s introduction to the world of textile mill work and labour activism. He honed his skills and eventually moved on to other mills, finally landing at Zebtan Textile Mills around 1966.


Dawn’s front page headline on June 8, 1972 | Dawn Archives

At that time, the country was simmering with anti-Ayub Khan sentiment, and the labour movement was gaining momentum. Bawar recalls that the workers, including him, participated in strikes against Ayub’s dictatorship.

“Usman Baloch was our leader and mentor,” Bawar recalls with respect. “He taught us how to fight for our rights.” Baloch was a towering figure in labour activism during the 1960s and 1970s, organising workers across various industries and the informal sector — from construction workers at Lea Market to textile mill workers in SITE and government institutions.

Bawar also mentions Kaneez Fatima, Shah Raza Khan and leftist student leaders, such as Karamat Ali (now PILER’s executive director), who helped mobilise workers by spending much of their time with the workers at their deras [male-only shared houses] in labour chalis [settlements] in SITE.

Bawar’s dedication resonated with his fellow workers, leading to his election as president of the Zebtan Textile workers union.

When Yahya Khan took power in 1969, Bawar was arrested at the mill gate and sent to Landhi Children’s Jail — due to his young age — for a period of time. Around this time, a powerful labour alliance, the Muttahida Mazdoor Federation (MMF), was formed by figures such as Nabi Ahmed, SP Lodhi and Usman Baloch. Eventually, Bawar rose through the ranks, becoming the MMF’s vice president and a key leader of the workers’ action committee, which united thousands of workers from over 75 industrial units across Karachi.

Bawar explains, “Back then, if there was an issue at one mill, all workers from all mills would gather there to pressure the owner.” This period also saw the worker occupation of Valika Textile Mills in SITE in March 1971.

Laurent Gayer, a senior research fellow at the Centre de Recherches Internationales (CERI)-Sciences Po in Paris, observes that the meteoric rise of Bawar and Baloch signalled a profound change in the profile of trade union leaders in Karachi. “They rose from the shop floor and contrasted with the more educated, more polished professional trade unionists, who were often Urdu-speaking and rarely had any experience of industrial work themselves,” says Gayer, author of the forthcoming book Gunpoint Capitalism: Enforcing Industrial Order in Karachi.

Thus, the movement against forced removals, exploitative mill owners, and unfavourable government policies continued through June 1972.

THE EVENTS OF JUNE 1972

“It all begins with Feroz Sultan Mills,” Bawar says as he recalls what unfolded on June 7, 1972, and the firestorm that ensued. It was a typical day, with Bawar addressing workers at the gate of Zebtan Textile Mills during a shift change, a regular practice for labour leaders to mobilise support.

“News came in,” Bawar remembers, “that police had brutally baton-charged workers at Feroz Sultan Mills who were protesting for their overdue wages.” Bawar, along with hundreds of Zebtan workers who had just finished their shift, marched towards Feroz Sultan Mills to show solidarity.

As they approached the mill, chanting slogans against the management, the situation escalated. Police stationed at the gate opened fire indiscriminately, according to Bawar. The scene turned chaotic.

“Two of our colleagues,” Bawar says, “Painda Muhammad and Muhammad Shoaib, both from Zebtan Textiles, were killed in the firing, while many others were injured.” Police took Painda’s body inside the mill and continued firing from above, while enraged workers retaliated with stones, carrying Shoaib’s body away from the violence.

Workers brought Shoaib’s body to the Eidgah Ground in Pathan Colony. Labour leaders and workers from across the city gathered, delivering speeches until late at night. The workers unanimously decided to hold a massive funeral procession for Shoaib, culminating in prayers at the Governor’s House.

On the morning of June 8, thousands of workers converged at Pathan Colony. As the procession reached Banaras Chowk, a heavy police contingent, led by the then Deputy Commissioner (DC) Kunwar Idrees, awaited them. Tear gas failed to deter the crowd. Suddenly, police opened fire, killing several workers, all from Swat and Mardan districts, and injuring dozens more.

News of the killing spread like wildfire. Bawar, along with other labour leaders on the action committee, sprang into action. In defiance of the killings, workers across Karachi shut down factories in a citywide strike. Bawar recounts, “All major textile mills and other industries were brought to a standstill by protesting workers.”

Karamat Ali, PILER’s executive director, in his book Raahguzar Tau Dekho [Assess The Way], notes that while the labour leadership scrambled to strategise the next steps, the rank-and-file workers took matters into their own hands. He notes, “The entire industrial areas of SITE and Landhi, as well as Korangi and Kotri Hyderabad, were brought to a halt by the spontaneous worker-led shutdown.”

Production across the city plummeted. Karachi, the industrial heart of Pakistan, was effectively paralysed.


Nabi Ahmed (pictured above addressing the crowd) and Usman Baloch (standing next to Ahmed with his arms folded) at a gathering at Frontier Colony on June 8, 1972: in defiance of the killings, workers across Karachi shut down factories in a citywide strike | Raahguzar Tau Dekho


AN UNEASY TRUCE

With mills shut down for days, financial hardship gripped the workers, most of them daily wage earners. “The leadership felt the pressure and decided to negotiate with the government,” Bawar says.

Labour leaders presented a 14-point demand charter, which included an inquiry into the firing, action against responsible officers, the release of all workers arrested after the incident and the withdrawal of the cases against them. Other demands addressed civic issues, such as access to water, gas and electricity, faced by workers in the SITE area settlements, such as Frontier Colony and Pathan Colony. Regularisation of these settlements was also stipulated.

“They built makeshift dwellings because they had no other option,” Bawar explains. “But the Karachi Municipal Corporation would demolish them or demand bribes, claiming the land was unauthorised.” The workers toiled for eight hours in the mills, only to face another eight-hour struggle, just to find water in these neglected areas.

Kamran Asdar Ali, an academic who teaches anthropology at the University of Texas, Austin, in his paper The Strength of the Street Meets the Strength of the State: The 1972 Labour Struggle in Karachi, writes that the government seemed reluctant to address the action committee’s core demand — the suspension of implicated officials: “Some leaders complained about the state representatives dragging their feet: they would meet the provincial labour minister, Abdus Sattar Gabol, on one day; the governor of Sindh, Mir Rasool Baksh Talpur, on the second; and the chief minister, Mumtaz Bhutto, on the third. In turn, all three government officials relayed their discussions to Bhutto, who was on a foreign trip.”

However, the labour movement faced an unexpected complication. The National Awami Party’s (NAP) Wali faction’s local leaders not only opposed the movement in the localities but also actively undermined it, according to Bawar. They did this by taunting the workers with slogans such as, “Khoon baicha pani liya [sold blood, took water]”, creating division and mistrust.

To counter this and secure a public commitment, the labour leaders decided that the agreement with the government would be announced at Nishtar Park, inviting labour leaders and workers from across the city.

“At the rally,” Bawar reveals, “the government announced its agreement to meet our demands if the strike ended.” But the announcement sparked outrage among charged workers. They chanted “Khoon ka badla khoon [blood for blood],” demanding the arrest of police officer DSP Noor Khan, who had ordered the firing. Nabi Ahmed tried to calm them, but to no avail.

Seeing the growing tension, Baloch called Bawar to the stage. “I addressed the workers,” Bawar says. “I told them that we had accepted the agreement because further financial hardship would only weaken us. We can’t fight shopkeepers, who are not lending rations to us or our families. We’re securing what we can and are preparing for future battles. Our destiny lies in a ’mazdoor kisan raj [workers-peasants rule].”

Bawar’s words resonated with the workers. They hoisted him on their shoulders in agreement. “I told them to take one more day off,” he says, “and the factories would pay them for it.” Finally, after a gruelling 14 days, the factories reopened.


Bawar Khan (pictured above), now in his 70s, is living a quiet retirement in his village in Swat | Courtesy of the author



THE CRACKDOWN

Following initial negotiations with labour leaders, the Bhutto government took a sharp turn towards repression. While Bhutto’s labour reforms offered unprecedented benefits, such as inflation allowances, social security and increased worker participation in management, these progressive measures were coupled with a severe crackdown on dissent, particularly against labour leaders.

The government invoked the Defence of Pakistan Rules (DPR), a tool previously used to silence political opposition, to target dissenters, including vocal labour leaders. This crackdown heavily relied on the Federal Security Force (FSF), a paramilitary force created by Bhutto to quell dissent after a police strike in March 1972. Media reports from that time documented the detention of 58 labour leaders, including Bawar and Baloch, from Karachi, Gharo, Hyderabad, Kotri and Kashmore, within a year of the June 1972 unrest.

“From June 1972 onwards,” Bawar recounts, “the government kept arresting and releasing me, a cycle that went on for several years. They fabricated charges, including cattle theft, to justify these arrests.” He estimated spending a total of three years in various provincial jails under Bhutto’s rule.

When Gen Ziaul Haq took power in July 1977, he ended the DPR cases against political, labour and student leaders, including Bawar.

FACING OPPOSITION, FORGING UNITY

The 1972 Karachi labour movement drew its strength from a confluence of social, political and economic factors. Scholars and labour leaders offer various perspectives on its success, highlighting the city’s unique context and evolving worker organisation strategies.

Asdar Ali emphasises Karachi’s explosive growth — fuelled by industrialisation between 1947 and 1972, with a population increase of 217 per cent — as a factor in the labour movement. More than half of Karachi’s growth since the early 1950s is attributed to migration from India and from rural and other urban areas of the country, he writes. He further explains how the practice of “jobbers” — recruitment of workers from specific districts in the NWFP and Southern Punjab through economic and social coercion, often based on ethnicity — created a divided workforce with limited bargaining power.

However, by the late 1960s, a radicalised left-wing movement had emerged, challenging these “pocket unions” controlled by management, Asdar Ali writes. This movement aimed to organise workers into independent trade unions and address the complex ethnic and social hierarchies within workplaces and worker colonies. Gayer says that Bhutto’s coming to power had galvanised workers and many believed that this would mark the beginning of the “mazdoor kisan raj.”

In his August 1972 article ‘From Pathan Colony to a Workers’ State’ in the Pakistan Forum journal, academic Iqbal Khan noted that the June 1972 state violence against workers was not surprising. He highlighted that the period leading up to the incident, particularly following the announcement of the Bhutto government’s labour policy, saw a significant surge in working-class activism, which he described as “an explosion in working-class militancy.”

He writes, “Strikes and gheraos have become common, everyday occurrences in hundreds of mills throughout Pakistan; in many industrial units, there has been an almost perpetual state of war between management and workers, often involving bloody clashes.” To underscore the scale of this unrest, he cited official statistics. In Punjab alone, from January to May 1972, there were 63 strikes and 55 gheraos. The situation in Sindh was even more volatile, with 176 factories gheraoed — 150 in Karachi and 26 in Hyderabad.

Despite its strength, the 1972 Karachi labour movement faced significant challenges. Bawar highlighted widespread opposition, not just from established parties such as Bhutto’s PPP and NAP (Wali group), but also from some communist leaders because of their pro-China and pro-Soviet divisions. Even the Islamist Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) opposed the movement on religious grounds. Bawar reveals, “The Jamaat deemed the demand for profit-linked bonuses, separate from regular wages, as ‘haram’ in Islam.”

However, the movement achieved a remarkable feat — overcoming ethnic divisions within the workforce. According to Asdar Ali, the Mohajir-dominated trade union leadership, which played a crucial role in advocating for labour rights in Karachi, also managed to “contain, much to its advantage, the cultural and linguistic tensions between the more highly skilled local workers (Mohajirs) and the less skilled up-country migrants (Pashtun/Southern Punjabis) through a rhetoric of class solidarity and proletarian politics.”

As Bawar observes, “At that time, all ethnicities, Pashtuns, Urdu-speakers, Punjabis, Baloch, etc, were working together in the mills and participated in labour politics.” However, this unity proved fragile. Bawar laments that the rise of ethnic politics during Zia’s dictatorship, particularly the emergence of the Mohajir Qaumi Movement (MQM), fractured this working-class solidarity. “It caused a huge loss to the working class, particularly the poor labourers,” he says.


The family of a labourer, Nekzada, mourns his death after he was fired upon by the police during protests on June 8, 1972: police opened fire on protestors who had converged at Pathan Colony, killing several workers and injuring dozens more | Dawn Archives

BHUTTO’S CRACKDOWN: BALANCING ACT OR BETRAYAL?

Academics and labour leaders offer various explanations for Bhutto’s use of force.

One key factor highlighted by some academics is the precarious economic situation Bhutto inherited. Academic Iqbal Khan, writing for the Pakistan Forum, emphasises the near-collapsed state of the economy and dwindling foreign currency reserves and views allowing worker actions to intimidate capitalists as economic suicide.

Some view it as a delicate balancing act. Bhutto’s nationalisation programme itself could have been seen as a concession to labour demands, diverting attention from further worker activism. Perhaps Bhutto saw stabilising the economy and consolidating power after a turbulent period as more important.

The academic Tausif Ahmed Khan explains, “Industrialists, already displeased with Bhutto’s nationalisation policies, had been further alienated by a labour movement. By cracking down, Bhutto aimed to appease them and maintain economic stability.” He also suggests Bhutto might have aimed to project a moderate image to the United States, distancing himself from socialist ideals associated with strong labour movements.

Karamat Ali says Bhutto’s dictatorial and feudal mindset ultimately hindered constructive dialogue with the labour movement. According to him, “Bhutto touted his pro-worker actions, such as nationalising industries, appointing labour representatives to directorships and increasing worker profit-sharing, and therefore became resentful of labour criticism and viewed their activism as a threat to his authority.”

The labour movement also exposed tensions within the PPP. Radical elements, such as Mairaj Mohammad Khan, accused the government of betraying its pro-worker stance by appeasing industrialists. This internal conflict highlighted a growing divide between the party’s leftist wing and more conservative elements that feared prolonged strikes could destabilise the government.

Tausif Ahmed Khan argues that the weakened labour movement created a vacuum that Islamist parties like JI readily exploited. “This, combined with the rise of the Pakistan National Alliance [PNA] movement, swayed many Mohajir and Pashtun voters in Karachi towards the right-wing,” he says.

He also asserts that a vibrant labour movement could have bolstered Karachi’s historically liberal character, shaped by student and worker activism: “Its decline might have paved the way for right-wing parties to gain traction. This, coupled with the PPP’s struggles to establish a strong presence in Karachi, could explain the party’s ongoing challenges in the city.”

Many leaders and workers, primarily Pashtuns, later joined mainstream parties, particularly the National Democratic Party (NDP), according to the Veteran labour lawyer Manan Baacha. This party, formed after Bhutto banned the NAP for alleged subversive activities, became a new political home for these figures. Baloch, for instance, joined the Mir Ghous Bux Bizenjo-led Pakistan National Party.

“The PPP’s handling of the labour movement through an ethnic lens,” Baacha notes, “deterred them from joining that party.” He cites the 1977 national assembly elections, where Sherbaz Mazari, the NDP leader, defeated the PPP candidate in Baldia Town and SITE industrial areas, under the banner of the PNA — a testament to the shift in worker allegiance.

WEAKENING OF THE MOVEMENT

Karamat Ali, in his book, details how mill owners and the labour department collaborated to suppress worker activism by circulating photographs of identified labour leaders, creating a climate of fear. This repression coincided with a period of economic hardship. “The textile crisis,” he explains, “which heavily impacted the sectors with high worker mobilisation, was followed by the oil crisis, leading to widespread industrial closures

“With local industries crippled,” Karamat Ali adds, “many active trade unionists, primarily from the Swat Valley, were forced to return to their hometowns or seek work abroad in the Gulf countries until early 1975. This mass exodus significantly weakened the Karachi labour force, depriving the movement of its vital core.”

Baacha characterises the movement as “haadsaati” or ‘accidental’ and argues that this unplanned nature, while successful initially, ultimately hindered its long-term impact. The movement lacked the crucial element of political backing, causing it to lose momentum.

Mill owners, emboldened by Zia’s dictatorship, implemented a contract system and mass layoffs, which further weakened the labour movement, according to Baacha. He says, “Trade union leaders at the industry level became part of ‘pocket unions’ and began playing the role of ‘contractors’.”

Bawar’s story exemplifies the impact on individual workers. “After the imprisonments, I was blacklisted,” Bawar recounts. “No one was hiring me as a worker.” After months of unemployment, workers collected donations to send Bawar’s family back to Swat and helped him join the shipping industry as a seaman, where he worked for 12 years. Later, he worked as a labourer in the United States, until recently, when he returned to Pakistan permanently.

THE REMAINS OF THE DAY

The 1972 Karachi strike remains a significant event, a testament to the power of organised labour even when it falls short of its initial goals. Today, however, Pakistan’s trade union landscape presents a stark contrast. Weakened by fragmentation, economic shifts and government policies, their ability to effectively advocate for workers’ rights remains a significant challenge.

Bawar, now in his 70s, is living a quiet retirement in Dherai village in Swat. In early 2022, he visited Karachi to reconnect with old friends, where labour groups hosted programmes in his honour. “Unfortunately,” he says, “the situation for workers today, particularly in Karachi, is worse than in 1972. But there is no labour movement or trade union because of the divisions among workers on various grounds.”

“Our movement was not just about pay,” he reflects, “it was about respect, about being seen. Karachi belonged to the workers in 1972. It was a different kind of power, a solidarity that forced the government to listen.”

“Karachi needs that again,” Bawar says.

The writer is a journalist and researcher whose work appears in The New York Times, Dawn, and other publications, as well as for various policy institutes. He can reached at zeea.rehman@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, EOS, June 9th, 2024

Header image: On June 10, 1972, a labourers’ procession is taken out from Frontier Colony in Karachi. It passes through Narimabad and Golimar, and ends at Quaid-i-Azam’s mausoleum: after the events of June 7-8, 1972, factories across Karachi remained shut for 14 days as labourers continued their protests | Dawn Archives


The writer is a journalist and researcher, who writes for The New York Times and Nikkei Asia, among other publications. He also assesses democratic and conflict development in Pakistan for various policy institutes. He tweets @zalmayzia

 UN and US Officials Ramp Up Attacks on Oil Industry

    Irina Slav - Jun 08, 2024

  • The UN chief's impassioned speech condemning the oil industry was not the only one this week.

  • A group of Democratic Representatives wrote a letter to the Department of Justice urging the institution to open an investigation into Big Oil.

  • Calls for the ban of advertising for the oil and gas industry don't seem to be getting a lot of traction.

"The Godfathers of climate chaos -- the fossil fuel industry -- rake in record profits and feast off trillions in taxpayer-funded subsidies," the secretary-general of the United Nations said this week in a speech on the occasion of World Environment Day.

Antonio Guterres then went on to paint an apocalyptic picture of our immediate future, which features a mass extinction—all because of the oil and gas industry—and suggested advertisers stop working with the industry and governments ban oil and gas advertising altogether. Yet advertising bans are unlikely to stop people from using oil products, including Guterres himself.

The UN chief's impassioned speech condemning the oil industry, however, was not the only one this week. His bold demand for a ban on oil and gas advertising was also not unprecedented. Attacks on the oil and gas industry from various national and international officials have been on the rise recently amid a faltering transition—even as reports come in that the buildout of low-carbon electricity generation capacity is breaking records.

Earlier this week, before Guterres' speech and his suggestion that oil companies should be hit with a windfall profit tax, a group of Democratic Representatives wrote a letter to the Department of Justice urging the institution to open an investigation into Big Oil. The motive for the investigation was the claim that US oil companies had colluded with OPEC to keep fuel prices high and, more interestingly, had failed to share their profits with end consumers by using them to keep prices at the pump low.

The idea that would sound eccentric and not really embody the spirit of a free market in any other context apparently sounded logical enough to its authors, who then went on to urge the DoJ to "investigate rigorously to uncover and punish wrongdoing."

"If U.S. oil companies are colluding with each other and foreign cartels to manipulate global oil markets and harm American consumers who then pay more at the pump, Congress and the American people deserve to know," the legislators said.

What the US oil companies were, in fact, doing during the pandemic lockdown year of 2020 was curbing production in response to a massive slump in international prices that pushed many a smaller producer to the brink and some over it. Reducing production is what any company would do when faced with a market awash with it due to a sudden drop in demand. Yet for the Jerrold Nadler-led group of Representatives, the oil and gas is as special a case as it is for Antonio Guterres and the other attendants at the World Environment Day celebration.

No other industry has been subjected to such pressure from legislative and international circles with the singular aim of squeezing it as much as possible to force it to essentially stop doing what it does. It is ironic in a sense because the authors of that letter to the DoJ, if they get what they want—punishment for the industry—might inadvertently cause even higher prices at the pump as producers curb output to capture higher prices and make up for the hypothetical penalties. It seems to be a problem for some legislators in the US that there is still a free market in the country.

The United Nations' Guterres and some Canadian legislators also seem to have a problem with the free market, hence the suggestion that governments ban oil and gas advertising—oblivious to the fact that people don't put gasoline in their cars because of advertising but because of basic needs to get from one place to another in the fastest and most comfortable way.

Besides, if the idea is to ban any oil product advertising, almost any advertising would need to be banned because of the versatility of oil derivatives and their ubiquitous use—including in transition industries such as wind and solar power and electric vehicles.

In fairness, calls for the ban of advertising for the oil and gas industry don't seem to be getting a lot of traction. In Canada, after an MP tabled a bill for such a ban, other legislators from the same party, the NDP, criticized the proposal, saying, "We already have legislation around false advertising, and we are more interested in advancing ideas that can actually help people," and that "It is not helpful to pick fights that just polarize people and get in the way of the real solutions we need."

The idea of a windfall profit tax specially leveled on the oil and gas industry to pay for alleged climate damages is another one that seems to have the favor of many in top political circles who are no doubt wondering how governments would foot the bill for the transition. Yet, the effect of actual windfall profit taxes, such as the one in the UK, seems to be discouraging wider adoption. Because this effect has been counterproductive, leading to lower investments and consequently lower local oil and gas production.

In theory, this is exactly what windfall tax and ad ban proponents want: lower oil and gas production. What they don't want are the consequences of that lowered production such as a cost of living crisis compared to which the current one would look like a picnic and, as a result, riots. It seems those anti-oil activists need to reconcile their attitude to the energy industry with their future career plans.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com


California Goes After Big Oil Profits

California’s Attorney General this week added a so-called disgorgement remedy to a lawsuit filed against Big Oil majors last year, demanding that they gave up profits made on allegedly illegal business practices.

The original lawsuit accused Big Oil of downplaying the risks associated with the use of oil and gas, and climate change. It targeted Exxon, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips.

“Big Oil has been lying to us – covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet. It has been decades of damage & deception. California is taking action to hold big polluters accountable,” Governor Gavin Newsom said in a Tweet at the time.

Now, Attorney General Rob Bonta who is leading the charge against Big Oil has added a clause that requires “a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct. The purpose of this remedy is to prevent unjust enrichment and make illegal conduct unprofitable.”

In other words, California claims that the oil and gas industry selling oil and gas it extracts and refines amounts to illegal activity or a wrongful act. It also claims, in the original lawsuit, that Big Oil made billions in profits while causing billions in damages resulting from climate change. The companies named in the suit were also accused of deceiving the public about their business and climate change.

The American Petroleum Institute was quick to react to the news.

“This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless, politicized lawsuits against a foundational American industry and its workers is nothing more than a distraction from important national conversations and an enormous waste of taxpayer resources,” said API General Counsel Ryan Meyers. “Climate policy is for Congress to debate and decide, not a patchwork of courts,” he added.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com