Alberta
Canadians owe Smith a debt of gratitude
“Thank you, Danielle Smith!”
That is what every man, woman, and child in our great nation should be shouting from the rooftops this week. Instead, our journalists, politicians, and their army of Leftist loudmouths on social media, are sticking with the story that she’s, somehow, a traitor. That couldn’t be further from the truth, and every one of them should be ashamed of themselves for saying it.
In fact, Smith has been almost entirely alone in fighting for Canada since Donald Trump began broadcasting his intention to use the threat of tariffs to pressure our government on illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking over our border.
The response from the media was first mockery and scorn — ‘Look at this American buffoon! He doesn’t even know how much he needs us!’ — followed by outrage at Trump and any Canadian who dared to suggest he might have a point. “Where is their patriotism?!” asked elitists who have spent their careers scoffing at any and every expression of Canadian pride.
And the response from our governing class has been all virtue-signaling and egotism. Yes, Justin Trudeau flew to Mar-a-Lago to make a perfunctory case against the tariff, but he took every opportunity which presented itself to trash Trump, accuse the American people who elected him of sexism, and imply that Canadians who might consider voting conservative were just as bad.
Meanwhile, Doug Ford began his chest-thumping ‘Captain Canada’ act, while calling an early election with an eye towards keeping himself in power for a few more years. The argument for this move didn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Why did Ford call an election in the middle of what he described as an all-hands-on-deck national emergency? Because he needed a huge majority in Queen’s Park to authorize the COVID-19-level government spending and interventions he needed to respond to Trump’s tariff… never mind the fact that the opposition parties are entirely on board with government spending and intervention.
Maybe he was worried that there are still a few conservatives left in his own caucus who’d object to him driving Ontario’s finances further into the mud? He shouldn’t be – if they stuck with him as he sunk billions into the dying EV industry, they’re likely to stick with him now.
In any event, Ford has created a situation where, in the midst of a crisis, his attention is split between governing and campaigning. It’s self-interest all the way down!
Smith, on the other hand, sprang into action. She flew to the States, first to Mar-a-Lago and then to Washington, and tirelessly made the case to all of the major players on this file — Trump himself, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and others — that the U.S. and Canada are better off working together.
She made it clear that Albertans are also concerned about the border, and about fentanyl trafficking. She criticized Trudeau’s anti-Trump tirades as “not helpful,” slammed proposals to cut off Canadian oil and gas to the U.S., and called for Ottawa to appoint a border and drugs czar, ideally a retired general, rather than some political flunky, an idea which has gotten support from retired members of our military corps.
Her instinct has always been towards turning down the temperature, rather than trying to heat things up — that, by the way, is called “diplomacy” — and she never missed an opportunity to stand up for our oil and gas industry. When our Laurentian elite began sabre rattling about slapping an export duty on Canadian energy heading south, she stood opposed to that as well.
And this is at the heart of the Liberal critique of Smith. She’s betrayed Canada, they say, because she only cares about Alberta and its energy industry. She stands opposed to any action which might imperil Albertan oil and gas.
To which I say: Of course! And good on her for it.
Because, remember, it isn’t only Alberta’s oil and gas industry. It’s Canada’s. And though Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney, and their “green” ideologue friends might wish it otherwise, oil and gas remains the backbone of the Canadian economy. It is our “golden goose,” in the words of economists Jack Mintz and Philip Cross, in a recent study of Canada’s resource sector. And it is far too important to the livelihood of Canadians — not just Albertans mind you — for the Trudeau Liberals to use it as a bargaining chip. Especially since they’ve spent years hamstringing it, while suggesting that we’d ultimately be better off if it went the way of the Dodo.
It’s worth noting that when the (short-lived) tariffs were announced, the White House underlined Smith’s advocacy by singling out oil and gas for a lower rate. More importantly, the concessions from Trudeau which got us our present reprieve — the drug czar and enhanced border enforcement especially — were first proposed by Smith!
So, a separatist? A traitor? Perish the thought! Smith is an advocate for our interests, and a great Canadian.
Hopefully, as we try to avert the unwelcome return of these tariffs, the government looks to Danielle Smith for some guidance. Especially because, chances are, her advice will be, ‘Call an election, so our prime minister has a mandate from the people and can negotiate from a position of strength!’
For the good of Canada, here’s hoping they listen.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy
Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!
Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.
Alberta
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary
From Energy Now
At the energy conference in Calgary, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pressed the case for building infrastructure to move provincial products to international markets, via a transportation and energy corridor to British Columbia.
“The anchor tenant for this corridor must be a 42-inch pipeline, moving one million incremental barrels of oil to those global markets. And we can’t stop there,” she told the audience.
The premier reiterated her support for new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Man., and potentially a new version of Energy East.
The discussion comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government are assembling a list of major projects of national interest to fast-track for approval.
Carney has also pledged to establish a major project review office that would issue decisions within two years, instead of five.
Alberta
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”
From Energy Now
By Ron Wallace
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate.
Following meetings in Saskatoon in early June between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian provincial and territorial leaders, the federal government expressed renewed interest in the completion of new oil pipelines to reduce reliance on oil exports to the USA while providing better access to foreign markets. However Carney, while suggesting that there is “real potential” for such projects nonetheless qualified that support as being limited to projects that would “decarbonize” Canadian oil, apparently those that would employ carbon capture technologies. While the meeting did not result in a final list of potential projects, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said that this approach would constitute a “grand bargain” whereby new pipelines to increase oil exports could help fund decarbonization efforts. But is that true and what are the implications for the Albertan and Canadian economies?
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate. Many would consider that Canadians, especially Albertans, should be wary of these largely undefined announcements in which Ottawa proposes solely to determine projects that are “in the national interest.”
The federal government has tabled legislation designed to address these challenges with Bill C-5: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act (the One Canadian Economy Act). Rather than replacing controversial, and challenged, legislation like the Impact Assessment Act, the Carney government proposes to add more legislation designed to accelerate and streamline regulatory approvals for energy and infrastructure projects. However, only those projects that Ottawa designates as being in the national interest would be approved. While clearer, shorter regulatory timelines and the restoration of the Major Projects Office are also proposed, Bill C-5 is to be superimposed over a crippling regulatory base.
It remains to be seen if this attempt will restore a much-diminished Canadian Can-Do spirit for economic development by encouraging much-needed, indeed essential interprovincial teamwork across shared jurisdictions. While the Act’s proposed single approval process could provide for expedited review timelines, a complex web of regulatory processes will remain in place requiring much enhanced interagency and interprovincial coordination. Given Canada’s much-diminished record for regulatory and policy clarity will this legislation be enough to persuade the corporate and international capital community to consider Canada as a prime investment destination?
As with all complex matters the devil always lurks in the details. Notably, these federal initiatives arrive at a time when the Carney government is facing ever-more pressing geopolitical, energy security and economic concerns. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada’s economy will grow by a dismal one per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 – this at a time when the global economy is predicted to grow by 2.9 per cent.
It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The undefined term “decarbonized”, is clearly aimed directly at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments using costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects whose economic viability at scale has been questioned. What might this mean for western Canadian oil producers?
The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d) as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operate at high levels of capacity. Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion. These seaborne shipments to major refineries (like New Brunswick’s Irving Refinery in Saint John) rely on imported oil by tanker with crude oil deliveries to New Brunswick averaging around 263,000 barrels per day. In 2023 the estimated total cost to Canada for imported crude oil was $19.5 billion with oil imports arriving from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%), and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.
What are the policy and cost implication of Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced, oil? It implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil would have to be produced and transported to competitive world markets under a material regulatory and financial burden. Meanwhile, eastern Canadian refiners would be allowed to import oil from the USA and offshore jurisdictions free from any comparable regulatory burdens. This policy would penalize, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while rewarding offshore sources. A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the One Canadian Economy Act moot and create two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.
Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
FBI Director: CCP Behind Wave of Pathogen Smuggling as Third Chinese Student Charged in Michigan Lab Probe
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Carney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella
-
conflict2 days agoIran nuclear talks were ‘coordinated deception’ between US and Israel: report
-
Alberta2 days ago
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”
-
Energy2 days agoCanada is no energy superpower
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary
-
Health2 days agoJust 3 Days Left to Win the Dream Home of a Lifetime!
-
Fraser Institute2 days agoLong waits for health care hit Canadians in their pocketbooks
-
conflict1 day agoOne dead, over 60 injured after Iranian missiles pierce Iron Dome
-
Crime2 hours agoManhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband