Today's announcement is a total nothing burger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmOb6e7VV30

....interesting how many of you Conservative supporters here thought Mark Carney Carney is a Bleeding Heart Liberal.


Now many Liberals are upset with him cozying up to Alberta UCP Premier Danielle Smith.


..isn't this what you conz wanted?

That MOU signed between Carney and Danielle Smith is a photo op. There will be no million barrel a day pipeline to NW BC.

The numbers don't lie: Ottawa drains Alberta of billions every year. This is what we lose by staying in Canada. Saskatchewan too.

Independence stops the drain.

Independence means Alberta and Saskatchewan stops suffering under a broken system that wants us poor and obedient.

We have to get away from these commie bastards while we still can.

If all Canadian provinces became U.S. states, not all of them would benefit in the same way. Some would gain economically, some politically, and some socially. The provinces that would benefit the most are the ones that:
1. Currently contribute more to Canada than they receive, or
2. Are held back by federal equalization policies or resource restrictions, or
3. Would gain significantly from greater control over taxation and resource development.
So let's look at each province realistically.
1. Alberta — Would benefit the most
Why?
Alberta is a net contributor to Canada's federal system.
It has high natural resource wealth but is restricted by:
*Federal carbon taxes
*Pipeline and land use policies
*Environmental regulatory delays
Alberta consistently receives $0 in Equalization while paying billions into federal transfers.
As a U.S. State:
*Alberta keeps its own resource royalties.
*It would likely get lower taxes and higher disposable income.
*Its oil could move freely through U.S. pipelines and ports.
*Population is large enough to get 5–7 seats in the U.S. House + 2 Senators.
Result: Higher income, more representation, and freedom to develop resources.
2. Saskatchewan — The second-biggest gainer
Very similar situation to Alberta but smaller population.
Benefits:
*Major energy and agricultural exporter.
*Currently pays into Canada's equalization structure indirectly.
*Suffers from the same pipeline and federal environmental restrictions.
As a U.S. State:
*Would gain access to the U.S. agricultural subsidy system.
*Better infrastructure and export markets for oil and potash.
*Lower transportation barriers to ports.
Result: Strong economic benefit, especially rural wealth.
3. British Columbia — Gains moderately
BC already benefits from Pacific trade, but it suffers from:
*Extremely high housing costs driven partly by federal immigration policies.
*Federal restrictions affecting forestry and LNG export projects.
As a U.S. State:
*LNG exports to Asia likely expand massively.
*U.S. port rules + greater private sector housing development incentives.
*High GDP per capita already → becomes wealthier under looser federal constraints.
Result: Gains mostly through resource and trade expansion.
4. Manitoba — Would benefit, but less dramatically
Manitoba currently receives equalization payments from Ottawa.
As a U.S. State:
*Equalization would end → income might drop at first.
*But manufacturing and agriculture would gain from U.S. supply chains.
*Lower corporate tax and faster business growth would likely offset the loss.
Result: Short-term adjustment, long-term moderate benefit.
5. Ontario — Mixed, depends on region
Ontario is divided:
Region Effect
*Toronto / Ottawa corridor Loses influence, loses federal administrative privilege
*Northern & Industrial Ontario Gains from U.S. manufacturing integration
*Southern Ontario currently benefits from being the political center of Canada. That advantage disappears as a U.S. state — power is decentralized.
Result: Southern Ontario loses politically; Northern Ontario and manufacturing gain economically.
6. Quebec — Would largely not want statehood
Quebec's benefits under Canada:
*Receives the largest equalization payments in the country.
*Maintains legal, cultural, and linguistic autonomy.
*Has political veto weight federally.
As a U.S. State:
*Equalization disappears.
*Cultural protections weaken.
*Quebec becomes one state among many.
Result: Quebec loses financially and culturally under statehood.
7. Atlantic Provinces (NB, NS, PEI, NL) — Mostly lose financially
These provinces depend on federal equalization and transfer programs.
Gains:
*Potential for increased tourism and military investment.
*Newfoundland offshore oil would grow under U.S. energy rules.
Losses:
*Guaranteed equalization revenue disappears.
Result: Slight economic growth long-term, but short-term revenue decline.
Summary of Who Benefits Most
Province Benefit Level Reason
Alberta ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Huge benefit Keeps resource wealth, removes federal constraints
Saskatchewan ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Resource + agriculture integration with U.S.
British Columbia ⭐⭐⭐ LNG + trade benefits
Manitoba ⭐⭐ Gains long-term, loses equalization short-term
Ontario (North/Industrial) ⭐⭐⭐ Gains economically
Ontario (Toronto/Ottawa) ⭐ Loses political dominance
Quebec ❌ Loses equalization + political leverage
Atlantic Provinces ❌ / ⭐ Lose equalization but gain some sector benefits
Conclusion
The big winners under statehood would be:
Alberta
Saskatchewan
British Columbia
Northern / Industrial Ontario
The losers would be:
Quebec
Atlantic Canada
Political elite and bureaucracy in Toronto and Ottawa (chatgpt)

The Alberta Court of Appeal has set down the week of Feb. 23 to hear the court challenge to the No More Pipelines Law, officially called the Impact Assessment Act.

This law stops provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador from developing resources to create jobs for people in their provinces.

In a previous court challenge, the Supreme Court ruled the legislation was unconstitutional. So Ottawa made some amendments. But this court challenge is arguing that Ottawa didn't fix the old problems that made it unconstitutional to begin with.

Let's hope the court challenge of Liberal tyranny is successful.

Yep

Remember when Anti-separatists swore Danielle Smith was going to steal your retirement?
Turns out it's Ottawa you should've been worried about.
Now the Liberals are being urged to cut Old Age Security spending, claiming it's gone from "protecting insecure retirees" to "padding the comfort of affluence."

Translation? They're setting the stage to chip away at the very benefits millions of seniors rely on.

If Alberta ran its own pension plan, we could protect our seniors, invest locally, and keep billions here at home instead of watching it disappear into Ottawa's deficit hole.

Quote from: Herman on October 15, 2025, 08:16:56 PMWhat do all these countries have in common? They don't pay any income tax. And why? Because they are resource rich with oil.

And then you have Canada, an incredibly resource-rich country, with oil, natural gas, minerals, lumber, and I could go on and on and on. But the Liberals won't let us reach new markets and get international prices for our resources.

And yet we are one of the most heaviest taxed nations in the world.

The new prairie republic will have low taxes.

Jo  Jo and I were discussing how all of those countries are able to get their oil to global markets and prices. The evil Liberal party of Mr. Carney will not allow Canada to reach it's economic potential.

What do all these countries have in common? They don't pay any income tax. And why? Because they are resource rich with oil.

And then you have Canada, an incredibly resource-rich country, with oil, natural gas, minerals, lumber, and I could go on and on and on. But the Liberals won't let us reach new markets and get international prices for our resources.

And yet we are one of the most heaviest taxed nations in the world.

The new prairie republic will have low taxes.

Quote from: JOE on October 14, 2025, 08:56:37 PMwasn't 1 pipeline enough DKG DKG?

Seems a better route would be a pipeline to Churchill Manitoba where the locals there are ready and willing to accept one.

Why do they need another pipeline thru BC?

Should send the LNG & Oil east to Europe where the Europeans are screaming for Canadian natural gas and oil so they can be less dependent on the middle east Russia and China.

Europe wants to build stronger ties with Canada. That's Canada should send its oil & gas.

Even our Prime Minister Mark Carney Carney agrees with that strategy,  DKG!

Sweetie, I explained you last night after you performed oral on me that Canada needs pipelines to all directions to reach all markets.

A route thru Northern BC would be the shortest route to Asian markets like Japan, Korea and China which are anxious to buy more Canadian crude. That route is the most economical and and it would produce the least amount of C02 emissions.

A pipeline to Hudson Bay is illogical. To export to the Europeans the best way would be a pipeline to the St. Lawrence River and then by tanker to Europe.

Understand now Sweetie why limiting energy exports is a stupid Carney Liberal Party policy that should be scrapped or do you need to drop to your knees first?