Alberta
When America attacks

Paul Wells interviews Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
It’s beginning to look a lot like statehood: Danielle Smith and more on the pod
Here’s Justin Trudeau, urging Pierre Poilievre to declare whether he stands with Canada or with “Danielle Smith, Kevin O’Leary, and ultimately, Donald Trump.” The great thing about a wedge is it can always do more wedging. Meanwhile Danielle Smith is still the premier of Alberta and she’s my first guest this week.
At one point in our interview — which makes Smith the third consecutive Alberta premier to appear on this podcast, so don’t be shy, François Legault — Smith says she asked Trump at Mar-a-Lago whether he’d like to buy more Alberta oil. We’re coming off a truly weird couple of weeks when people were falling over themselves to call Smith a traitor or sellout for that kind of talk. Which is odd for several reasons, including this: as my guest from two weeks ago, former US ambassador David L. Cohen, pointed out, Alberta already sells immense amounts of oil into the American market. So it’s not some deranged fantasy to imagine it might sell more.
I never liked the “Team Canada” talk that swept through this country like a bad fashion trend after Trump tweeted his threat of 25% blanket tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports. I kind of don’t care who’s offside that sort of coerced and silly unanimity, or for what reasons: it will always be somebody, and the social capital you burn up in a futile attempt to enforce the party line will be a terrible, stupid waste. Kids, ask your parents about the Charlottetown Accord referendum. That it turned out this time to be the premier of the province with by far the most to lose from some counter-tariffs or, especially, from an oil export ban should not have been a big shocker. The party-line approach is also a strange response. There’s no Team America. Donald Trump will be challenged in court for everything he does for the rest of his time in office, often by state governors, and encouraging those natural divisions among our American friends makes more sense than forbidding natural divisions at home.
This may have something to do with why Louis St. Laurent, in his 1947 Gray Lecture, named national unity as the paramount value in Canadian foreign policy, ahead of liberty and the rule of law. “No policy can be regarded as wise which divides the people whose effort and resources must put it into effect,” he said, in one of the most enthusiastically ignored lessons in Canadian political history.
As it turns out, I think the air was already going out of the Team Canada balloon before Smith joined me on a Zoom call. Voices have been piping up, including economist Trevor Tombe on David Herle’s podcast, warning about substantial permanent economic cost in exchange for not much political gain.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear where I stand on all this. Smith makes herself pretty clear too.
Subscribe to Paul Wells.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
I added a second guest because I knew my time with Smith would be finite, and because we have so much to talk about these days. My second guest is Amy Greenberg, who’s one of the leading historians of the antebellum United States (1800-1860, the period leading up to the Civil War.)

She’s a former Guggenheim Fellow, an award-winning teacher, and the author of five books, many of which grapple with the notion of manifest destiny — the idea that the United States, as a historic vanguard of liberty, must keep growing until it filled a continent.
Manifest destiny is a founding American myth, a uniquely powerful intersection of messianism and acreage. You know who’d have a feeling for that sort of thing? A real estate man from Queen’s. But Greenberg, understandably, was reluctant to analyze anything Trump might be up to. She’s happy to stick to what she knows, but that’s fascinating enough: American expansionism as a project of zealots, but also of scoundrels eager for a distraction. The idea of annexing Texas, which became the Mexican-American War and thus the topic of Greenberg’s most prominent book, occurred to the hapless accidental President John Tyler while he was facing impeachment and after the Whigs’ congressional wing had kicked him out of the party. And as she points out in an earlier book with the intriguing title Manifest Manhood, the expansionist impulse is also an expression of a certain idea of robust and aggressive masculinity. Just remember, she’s not talking about Donald Trump.
You can listen to this episode on Apple Podcasts and a bunch of other platforms via the “Listen On” button that you can see at the top of this post when you view it on your desktop browser. If you listen on a podcast platform, hit “Like” and “Subscribe” buttons, and leave a good review, to help spread the word.
You can read a (machine-generated) transcript of this week’s episode via the “Transcript” button at the top of this page when you view it on your desktop browser.
I am grateful to be the Max Bell Foundation Senior Fellow at McGill University, the principal patron of this podcast. Antica Productions turns these interviews into a podcast every week. Kevin Breit wrote and performed the theme music. Andy Milne plays it on piano at the end of each episode. Thanks to all of them and to you. Please tell your friends to subscribe to The Paul Wells Show on their favourite podcast app, or here on the newsletter.
Subscribe to Paul Wells.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Alberta
Calls for a new pipeline to the coast are only getting louder

From Resource Works
Alberta wants a new oil pipeline to Prince Rupert in British Columbia.
Calls on the federal government to fast-track new pipelines in Canada have grown. But there’s some confusion that needs to be cleared up about what Ottawa’s intentions are for any new oil and gas pipelines.
Prime Minister Carney appeared to open the door for them when he said, on June 2, that he sees opportunity for Canada to build a new pipeline to ship more oil to foreign markets, if it’s tied to billions of dollars in green investments to reduce the industry’s environmental footprint.
But then he confused that picture by declaring, on June 6, that new pipelines will be built only with “a consensus of all the provinces and the Indigenous people.” And he added: “If a province doesn’t want it, it’s impossible.”
And BC Premier David Eby made it clear on June 2 that BC doesn’t want a new oil pipeline, nor does it want Ottawa to cancel the related ban on oil tankers steaming through northwest BC waters. These also face opposition from some, but not all, First Nations in BC.
Eby’s energy minister, Adrian Dix, also gave thumbs-down to a new oil pipeline, but did say BC supports expanding the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain TMX oil pipeline, and the dredging of Burrard Inlet to allow bigger oil tankers to load Alberta oil from TMX at the port of Vancouver.
While the feds sort out what their position is on fast-tracking new pipelines, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith leaped on Carney’s talk of a new oil pipeline if it’s tied to lowering the carbon impact of the Alberta oilsands and their oil.
She saw “a grand bargain,” with, in her eyes, a new oil pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert, BC, producing $20 billion a year in revenue, some of which could then be used to develop and install carbon-capture mechanisms for the oil.
She noted that the Pathways Alliance, six of Canada’s largest oilsands producers, proposed in 2021 a carbon-capture network and pipeline that would transport captured CO₂ from some 20 oilsands facilities, by a new 400-km pipeline, to a hub in the Cold Lake area of Alberta for permanent underground storage.
Preliminary estimates of the cost of that project run up to $20 billion.
The calls for a new oil pipeline from Bruderheim, AB, to Prince Rupert recall the old Northern Gateway pipeline project that was proposed to run from Alberta to Kitimat, BC.
That was first proposed by Enbridge in 2008, and there were estimates that it would mean billions in government revenues and thousands of jobs.
In 2014, Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper approved Northern Gateway. But in 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal overruled the Harper government, ruling that it had “breached the honour of the Crown by failing to consult” with eight affected First Nations.
Then the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who succeeded Harper in 2015, effectively killed the project by instituting a ban on oil tanker traffic on BC’s north coast shortly after taking office.
Now Danielle Smith is working to present Carney with a proponent and route for a potential new crude pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert.
She said her government is in talks with Canada’s major pipeline companies in the hope that a private-sector proponent will take the lead on a pipeline to move a million barrels a day of crude to the BC coast.
She said she hopes Carney, who won a minority government in April, will make good on his pledge to speed permitting times for major infrastructure projects. Companies will not commit to building a pipeline, Smith said, without confidence in the federal government’s intent to bring about regulatory reform.
Smith also underlined her support for suggested new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Manitoba, and potentially a new version of Energy East, a proposed, but shelved, oil pipeline to move oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries and a marine terminal in the Maritimes.
The Energy East oil pipeline was proposed in 2013 by TC Energy, to move Western Canadian crude to an export terminal at St. John, NB, and to refineries in eastern Canada. It was mothballed in 2017 over regulatory hurdles and political opposition in Quebec.
A separate proposal known as GNL Quebec to build a liquefied natural gas pipeline and export terminal in the Saguenay region was rejected by both federal and provincial authorities on environmental grounds. It would have diverted 19.4 per cent of Canadian gas exports to Europe, instead of going to the US.
Now Quebec’s environment minister Benoit Charette says his government would be prepared to take another look at both projects.
The Grays Bay idea is to include an oil pipeline in a corridor that would run from northern BC to Grays Bay in Nunavut. Prime Minister Carney has suggested there could be opportunities for such a pipeline that would carry “decarbonized” oil to new markets.
There have also been several proposals that Canada should build an oil pipeline, and/or a natural gas pipeline, to the port of Churchill. One is from a group of seven senior oil and gas executives who in 2017 suggested the Western Energy Corridor to Churchill.
Now a group of First Nations has proposed a terminal at Port Nelson, on Hudson Bay near Churchill, to ship LNG to Europe and potash to Brazil. And the Manitoba government is looking at the idea.
“There is absolutely a business case for sending our LNG directly to European markets rather than sending our natural gas down to the Gulf Coast and having them liquefy it and ship it over,” says Robyn Lore of project backer NeeStaNan. “It’s in Canada’s interest to do this.”
And, he adds: “The port and corridor will be 100 per cent Indigenous owned.”
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has suggested that the potential trade corridor to Hudson Bay could handle oil, LNG, hydrogen, and potash slurry. (One obvious drawback, though, winter ice limits the Hudson Bay shipping season to four months of the year, July to October.)
All this talk of new pipelines comes as Canada begins to look for new markets to reduce reliance on the US, following tariff measures from President Donald Trump.
Alberta Premier Smith says: “I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November. I think that’s changed the national conversation.”
And she says that if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast oil pipeline.
“I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”
Now we need to know what Mark Carney’s stance on pipelines really is: Is it fast-tracking them to reduce our reliance on the US? Or is it insisting that, for a pipeline, “If a province doesn’t want it, it’s impossible.”
Alberta
Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament

From LifeSiteNews
Conservative MP Damien Kurek stepped aside in the Battle River-Crowfoot riding to allow Pierre Poilievre to enter a by-election in his native Alberta.
Conservative MP Damien Kurek officially resigned as an MP in the Alberta federal riding of Battle River-Crowfoot in a move that will allow Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre to run in a by-election in that riding to reclaim his seat in Parliament.
June 17 was Kurek’s last day as an MP after he notified the House Speaker of his resignation.
“I will continue to work with our incredible local team to do everything I can to remain the strong voice for you as I support Pierre in this process and then run again here in Battle River-Crowfoot in the next general election,” he said in a statement to media.
“Pierre Poilievre is a man of principle, character, and is the hardest working MP I have ever met,” he added. “His energy, passion, and drive will have a huge benefit in East Central Alberta.”
Kurek won his riding in the April 28 election, defeating the Liberals by 46,020 votes with 81.8 percent of the votes, a huge number.
Poilievre had lost his Ottawa seat to his Liberal rival, a seat that he held for decades, that many saw as putting his role as leader of the party in jeopardy. He stayed on as leader of the Conservative Party.
Poilievre is originally from Calgary, Alberta, so should he win the by-election, it would be a homecoming of sorts.
It is now up to Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney to call a by-election in the riding.
Carney had promised that he would “trigger” a by-election at once, saying there would be “no games” trying to prohibit Poilievre from running and win a seat in a safe Conservative riding.
Despite Kurek’s old seat being considered a “safe” seat, a group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Poilievre in the by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carleton riding in April’s election.
-
Energy2 days ago
Kananaskis G7 meeting the right setting for U.S. and Canada to reassert energy ties
-
Business2 days ago
Carney’s Honeymoon Phase Enters a ‘Make-or-Break’ Week
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta announces citizens will have to pay for their COVID shots
-
conflict2 days ago
Israel bombs Iranian state TV while live on air
-
Business2 days ago
Carney praises Trump’s world ‘leadership’ at G7 meeting in Canada
-
Business1 day ago
The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump leaves G7 early after urging evacuation of Tehran
-
conflict1 day ago
Middle East clash sends oil prices soaring