The Liberals have cost Alberta and Saskatchewan $670 billion. If Carney wants to prove he is a national leader he should fast track a pipeline to Prince Rupert.

Bell: Smith to Carney — Wanted Now, a pipeline to Prince Rupert, B.C.
'The project I've been looking at is a revival of the Northern Gateway project to the port of Prince Rupert,' says Premier Danielle Smith

What does Alberta Premier Danielle Smith want? What does Smith want right now?

What does she want from Prime Minister Mark Carney?

Smith presented Carney with nine demands. She wants Carney to roll back the harmful Liberal laws and regulations attacking Alberta and Alberta's oilpatch.

She gave him six months. End of October. Near Halloween.

If Carney isn't moving in Alberta's direction it could get scary.

The premier answers this scribbler by saying she will express what she wants right now in practical terms.


Carney says he's interested in fast-tracking projects, here is Smith's project.

"The project I've been looking at is a revival of the Northern Gateway pipeline to the port of Prince Rupert," says  Smith.

"Because when you look at that particular route it gives us access to all the Asian markets and gives us a preference of being able to get our product there over any country in the world."

Smith talks about eight to 10 days to South Korea and Japan and on to the east coast of India with all the other nations in between.

"Being able to create new markets there with additional export of bitumen is going to be incredibly important," says the Alberta premier.

She adds the biggest refinery of heavy oil is in India.

Four South Korean refineries have already received shipment of Trans Mountain heavy oil.

"They like it and they want more of it," says Smith.

What does it all mean?

Well the pipeline would have to be fast-tracked so you don't have to wait 10 years for an approval "and so it is de-risked to a point where somebody will come along and build it," says Smith.

If you get someone wanting to build the pipeline with the fast-track approval and that pipeline goes to the port of Prince Rupert there can no longer be a tanker ban because you need the boats to get the product overseas.

For Smith, you also can't very well have a cap on oil emissions because "if you want to increase your exports you can't have an emissions cap that acts as a production cap."

And, Smith adds, Ottawa can't layer on their own carbon tax regime because people won't invest here.

If Carney makes all that happen, for Smith, that would signal he is serious about changing things.

"That's what I'll be looking at as an indicator of whether the federal government is going to meet us part way," she says.

Well, what if it doesn't happen?

Smith was hopeful when she spoke with Carney two weeks ago.

But Carney is the master of double-talk and, in his inner circle, he has a lot of the seat-warmers from the Liberal government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau and a few like green guru Steven Guilbeault who was just talking down more pipelines.

There is also a new environment minister in the Carney Liberal government who is cast as a Guilbeault clone.

Smith says she knows of several projects being floated stateside. These projects would get more Alberta oil and gas into the United States.

"What do you think it's going to do to national unity if it's easier for Alberta to get its product to the United States than through British Columbia or through eastern Canada?"

The premier asks whether words were said "just to win elections" or "whether words were said because we're serious about trading with each other and supporting each other and we're serious about finding new markets for our products."

Smith says we will know pretty soon whether or not Alberta is going to have to switch its focus to expanding its relationship with the United States or whether our fellow Canadians are serious about Team Canada being on Team Alberta.

There is some hope.

Smith thinks it is "fantastic" Quebec Premier Francois Legault figures maybe, just maybe, a pipeline could pass through the northern part of his home province.

The premier sees it as a sign premiers and provinces want to work together.

Albertans will remain skeptical until we get well beyond talk, talk and more talk.

Alberta has been burned too many times to accept anything until it is carved in stone.

And Smith, who is trying to get a new deal for Alberta working within a united Canada, knows full well what could happen if the province doesn't get a win, a big win, soon.
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/bell-smith-to-carney-wanted-now-a-pipeline-to-prince-rupert-b-c

Quote from: Eddie the chug on May 17, 2025, 07:25:48 PMThe Trudeau Liberals zealous pursuit of shutting down the oil and gas industries in Canada has resulted in $670 billion of investment lost in abandoned resource projects in the last decade, according to industry media source EnergyNow. There is a total of 31 projects that have been shelved since 2015, including Northern Gateway pipeline, a $7.9 billion investment that Trudeau himself vowed in 2014 he would personally kill. There was also Energy East pipeline ($15.7 billion), Pacific Northwest LNG (a $36 billion export plant), Energie Saguenay ($20 billion LNG plant), and Mackenzie Valley Pipeline (joint-venture partnership with Aboriginal Pipeline Group at estimated cost of $16.2 billion). The Trudeau government is prone to herald their involvement with Trans Mountain, but this is no success to boast about: an abandoned pipeline project purchased by the Crown for $4.4 billion and an estimated cost of completion of $7.4 billion in 2018 and then completed in 2024 at a final cost of $30.9 billion of taxpayers' dollars.

See what happens Eddie when you Chugs put down the sanitizer bottle. You can think almost as clearly as us White fellas.

Eddie the Chug is right about the Liberals treating the prairie provinces like ATM's while trampling their economies.

Well known economist likes the idea of an Alberta Accord to address areas where that province is taking it in the ass from the federal Liberals.

https://thehub.ca/2025/05/15/trevor-tombe-why-an-alberta-accord-makes-sense/
Today, concern around the "fair" allocation of federal finances is one of the main flashpoints, followed closely by demands for greater infrastructure.

Newfoundland and Labrador has taken the federal government to court over the equalization formula, and in a recent televised address Alberta's premier Danielle Smith called for eliminating uneven transfers between the four largest provinces; saying there is "no excuse for such large and powerful economies like Ontario, Quebec, B.C., or Alberta to be subsidizing one another."

Following Premier Smith's address, much of the focus has been on the issue of rising separatist sentiment in the province, with now roughly one in three residents expressing support for leaving Canada.

But separation can distract from more concrete issues the provincial government has with federal policy. Issues that it hopes to raise directly. The province will create a special negotiating team to engage with Ottawa over infrastructure, emissions policies, transfers, trade policy, and more.

While many might want to avoid any talk of an "Alberta Accord," perhaps out of concern it legitimizes separatists in the province, that would be a mistake.

Whatever one thinks of the specific points raised by Alberta's government, managing regional tensions is an important way in which we govern ourselves in this highly decentralized country. Time and again, federal policy has responded flexibly to regional concerns. Not always, of course, but often—even when the rhetoric of provincial political leaders gets a little out of hand.

Federal-provincial fights are normal
Debates over federal transfers are a good example of this. At some point or another, leaders from nearly all provinces representing nearly all political parties have raised heated concerns over federal transfers.

One premier (a Liberal one from Ontario, to be clear) once called the equalization program "perverse and nonsensical," and several other provinces have taken the federal government to court over it, from the Social Credit in B.C. to the NDP in Saskatchewan.

Sometimes, provinces make dramatic symbolic gestures to show just how frustrated they are. Joey Smallwood, Newfoundland's first premier after joining Confederation, once draped government buildings in black, flew flags at half-mast, and declared the province in mourning after talks with Ottawa over fiscal arrangements broke down. (A crowd then burned Prime Minister Diefenbaker in effigy.)

Less well known to many Canadians today is that these conflicts even predate Confederation itself. Upper and Lower Canada spent decades fighting over how to divvy up tariff revenues. The British Parliament had to step in more than once. At one point, Upper Canadian leaders even tried to annex Montreal to gain access to a port (and other reasons). Even implicit redistribution received its share of attention. George Brown, one of the Fathers of Confederation, often complained that Canada West (i.e., Ontario) contributed three-quarters of the united province's revenue but received only half the spending.

Nova Scotia's Joseph Howe even led Canada's first separatist movement, arguing that the province had been shortchanged.

Ottawa responded with "better terms" that helped ease tensions. And this early example of how federal governments respond is notable.

Why federal flexibility matters

Time and again, when tensions flared, Ottawa adjusted. From special grants to Manitoba, to generous early terms for Alberta and Saskatchewan, to increased debt allowances for Ontario and Quebec, the list goes on. And today, even equalization goes through significant reforms in response to provincial demands. Today's formula, after all, exists in no small part due to former prime minister Paul Martin's response to concerns raised by Newfoundland and Labrador.

This history doesn't mean provincial concerns are always justified—but it does mean they're normal. It's baked into the very nature of our federation. Canada is vast and highly diverse. Federal policy can't possibly satisfy every region, every year.

That's why flexibility matters. A federal government that refuses to respond to regional pressures is the exception, not the rule. Special arrangements—tailored to regional realities—are a vital part of keeping the federation together.

Today, Premier Smith's recent address reminds us once again just how deep those tensions can run. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the premier's concerns, her remarks tap into longstanding frustrations over federal finances, energy policies, and infrastructure.

The federal government has responded to such frustrations in the past, and today should be no different. An "Alberta Accord" or something similar may very well be a useful and necessary step forward.

Roll up our sleeves and get in there
Canada's regional diversity is not a weakness, but an asset.

Even when such diversity causes tension and, dare I say, alienation, it can be a good thing.

Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau thought so, at least. Regional loyalties naturally develop, he observed in 1969, and central government policies will always involve "making some allocation of resources which means we're taxing one part of the country to help another; or putting tariffs on one part of the country to help another...this is inevitable in a country of this size."

But he wisely noted that the danger to Canada is in only looking at policy through the lens of "one regional point of view." Something both federal and provincial governments have been known to do.

The challenge for our political leaders is to recognize moments of tension as opportunities to both understand unique regional concerns and to try and address them.

For Trudeau senior, the solution was not to break up the country, but to "roll up our sleeves and not just gripe and bitch, but get in there..."

The call for negotiations around an Alberta Accord may be an opportunity to do just that.


Trevor Tombe

Quote from: Herman on May 17, 2025, 09:01:58 PMRoll up our sleeves and get in there
Canada's regional diversity is not a weakness, but an asset.

Even when such diversity causes tension and, dare I say, alienation, it can be a good thing.

Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau thought so, at least. Regional loyalties naturally develop, he observed in 1969, and central government policies will always involve "making some allocation of resources which means we're taxing one part of the country to help another; or putting tariffs on one part of the country to help another...this is inevitable in a country of this size."

But he wisely noted that the danger to Canada is in only looking at policy through the lens of "one regional point of view." Something both federal and provincial governments have been known to do.

The challenge for our political leaders is to recognize moments of tension as opportunities to both understand unique regional concerns and to try and address them.

For Trudeau senior, the solution was not to break up the country, but to "roll up our sleeves and not just gripe and bitch, but get in there..."

The call for negotiations around an Alberta Accord may be an opportunity to do just that.


Trevor Tombe

Even if the Liberals showed some goodwill to Alberta(they never will) like they do Quebec, it's too little too late.

Fuck Canada, we expats want our investments dollarized.

Quote from: Shen Li on May 17, 2025, 10:09:07 PMEven if the Liberals showed some goodwill to Alberta(they never will) like they do Quebec, it's too little too late.

Fuck Canada, we expats want our investments dollarized.

Unfortunately, yer not gonna get it Shen Li Shen.

Those resources belong to the People of Canada.

Quote from: JOE on May 17, 2025, 10:32:02 PMUnfortunately, yer not gonna get it Shen Li Shen.

Those resources belong to the People of Canada.

Jo Jo you are so cute but seriously misinformed. In 1930 natural-resource rights were transferred by the federal government to the Prairie provinces.

But, your post was not a reply to what Ms Li's post. She never mentioned resource ownership.

What did I tell you Sweetie after we had sex last night about changing the subject. You don't want to lose your allowance do you. That will mean no chocolate gold coins and lube.

Quote from: Thiel on May 18, 2025, 01:34:50 AMJo Jo you are so cute but seriously misinformed. In 1930 natural-resource rights were transferred by the federal government to the Prairie provinces.

Correct.

I heard that Alberta and Saskatchewan NDP parties want to amend that and give it back to Ottawa. I assume that kind of federal control they dream of is because the Liberals are a permanent governing party and they want to keep prairie natural resource wealth in the ground.

Quote from: DKG on May 18, 2025, 09:40:55 AMCorrect.

I heard that Alberta and Saskatchewan NDP parties want to amend that and give it back to Ottawa. I assume that kind of federal control they dream of is because the Liberals are a permanent governing party and they want to keep prairie natural resource wealth in the ground.

That is more recent. When I was an NDP supporter we were less centralist. That was before urban globalists hijacked our party and shit on the old blue collar base.

It is a dang shame that folks in Central Canada cannot figure this out.

rom 1981 to 2022 (the latest year of available data), Albertans' net contribution to the CPP—meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta received in CPP benefit payments—was $53.6 billion. British Columbia was the only other province where workers paid more into the CPP than retirees received in benefits—and Alberta's contribution was six times greater than B.C.'s contribution.

On equalization—Canada's transfer program aimed at ensuring each province can provide comparable levels of public services—Alberta has not received payments since 1964/65. In 2022 (the latest year of available data), the federal government spent $21.9 billion on equalization while 13.5 per cent of total federal revenue came from Alberta, which means Alberta taxpayers contributed an estimated $3.0 billion to the equalization program that year—while receiving no payments.

More broadly, Alberta's total net contribution to federal finances and national programs (that is, total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times more than the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors) despite Alberta's smaller population.
So that's the reality—Alberta massively overcontributes to federal and national programs. But that's not necessarily a problem, in and of itself. The problem is that despite Alberta's outsized importance within Canada, Albertans have faced a barrage of federal policies that disproportionately and negatively impact the province including Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off B.C.'s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous "net-zero" targets, and so on.

I hope my fellow chugs in Alberta vote yes in the independence referendum.

I believe independence would be better for Chugs like Eddie.

Top 5 Myths About Alberta Separation — Debunked

1. First Nations have a veto over separation. X False. Indigenous communities have a constitutional right to be consulted - not to veto a province-wide democratic decision. The Supreme Court is clear: a successful referendum mandates negotiation.
2. Separation is illegal in Canada. X False. The Supreme Court's Clarity Act ruling confirms that provinces can begin negotiations if a clear majority votes in favour.
3. We'd lose access to trade. X False. Alberta already exports globally. Independence means negotiating directly - with more agility, not less.
4. We're dependent on equalization. X False. Alberta receives $0 in equalization and sends over $20B a year to Ottawa - far more than it gets back.
5. The economy would collapse. X False. Alberta has one of the strongest economies in North America - larger than many independent nations.