darwink
Senior Member
I don't think this is true. It wasn't true for Trudeau, and it certainly isn't true for Carney.
|
|
|
Alberta Provincial Politics
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
He has said he will not impose a project on a province that does not want it. Unless something changes with Eby I don't see the BC government coming on side.
trtcttc
Senior Member
There's daily shipments of Alaskan crude down the Pacific Coast with a minor exclusion zone. We load crude on the South side of the coast where there is significantly more people living there with no issue. The exclusion zone on the north side is nothing but politics. Alberta oil exports play a huge role in our current account balance. If our economy as a country is held captive by a few interest groups, and we are significantly less competitive than our neighbors, that is a serious failure of our confederation. Enbridge and TC are not building in the US because they love the US, it's because the policy environment is supportive while the one here is not.Interesting take...
Nelson: Alberta won't separate as Smith falls for Carney's promises
The momentum the recent federal election provided to Alberta separatism is gone while Danielle Smith will come to regret trusting the Grits.calgaryherald.com
While some think Danielle fuels the separatist flames with her comments on Canada not being a country if it can't build a pipeline, an ally of hers; Chris Nelson, says the opposite because she's giving Carney a chance.
As political plays go, this is good for Smith it forces Carney to pick a side, pipeline or no pipeline. As a practical play, it isn't a good one. If the goal was anything more than to own the libs you assemble this same team but wait until you have reassurances that it will get the green light and then you announce it.
Playing politics with pipelines will always lead to a loss, Carney has more to lose by siding with the pipeline than he does just letting Danielle's game playout. Afterall this is politics for him as well, he's leading a minority government. Carney will sit on the fence as long as he needs to, Danielle just bought him 6 more months at least as she studies this. The goal should be to actually build what will move the economic needle, instead, and again, a pipeline has been reduced to a political exercise not a practical exercise.
When do we go to the provincial polls again?
I don't actually think politics will be as big of a deal here. There's already a lot of discussions that the emissions cap is done, and I don't think Carney went into this job to get re-elected for a decade. It's not just Carney but business leaders in general have long been calling for making Canada more competitive as we've fallen well behind the US.
darwink
Senior Member
And so did Trudeau. And yet...
The full quote says more:
“We will not impose a project on a province. We need consensus behind these projects and we need the participation of Indigenous peoples. What’s encouraging from the First Ministers’ meeting in Saskatchewan is that many provinces came together in support of projects that would stretch across provincial boundaries.”
Concurrently from Eby:
"What I don't support is tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidy going to build this new pipeline "
and Smith:
"I would hope that what would happen is that we would identify whatever legitimate concerns that a province might have and then work through them"
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
I hope you're right and that there is a new Sheriff in town that is more motivated to do what needs to be done.
darwink
Senior Member
With what the USA is doing, it is pretty important to both keep the country together, and ensure we have the resources to stay independent.
Carney in his book wrote that Chretien had three goals, keep Quebec in, keep the Americans out, and never have domestic decisions dictated by the IMF and or World Bank.
Replace Quebec in specific with keeping the country together in general, and I think you have Carney's goals as we've seen so far.
BC has to reckon with that if they reject building the nation, the nation might not exist anymore. Same with Indigenous Nations--it comes down to some really nasty realpolitik. If your rights cause the nation state which defends those rights (imperfectly) to implode, and then those rights are at risk to non-existent in the not to distant future, is that better or worse for the Nation.
Roaring Flames
Senior Member
I don't think a new pipeline makes much money sense in the long run, but if it keeps Alberta around in Canada, then go for it.
darwink
Senior Member
If it ‘buys’ the pathways project to reduce ghgs and insurance against the USA deciding not to buy oil anymore it can make sense.
InfrastructureEnthusiast
Active Member
As critical as I've been of the feds (and certain provinces) Canada can be far better off working together than just about any other scenario.
Having a continent spanning country with access to two oceans is a staggeringly rare opportunity. There exactly two other countries in that club and it would be beyond foolish to give that up.
That said, keeping it together is not an easy task either. Canada faces a number of challenges that no other nation does, and circumstances are always changing.
I get a good chuckle every time I hear "unceded lands" mentioned. If there was ever a 'careful what you wish for' statement...