The Liberals' energy policies are bad economics and even worse politics, and the threat they represent for national unity can't be ignored as unhelpful whining.
Hey everyone, I've just sent out a note, but there was a technical issue with this post this morning, now resolved. Anyone showing up here to tell us the text was garbled — we know! Thanks for flagging, and our apologies to Chris. Honestly don't know what happened.
You’d be surprised. The old stereotypes are largely out of date, to whatever extent they were once true at all. The modern journalist is a shockingly clean-living creature.
I was thinking more about the tendency for things to go sideways in your business. As you have pointed out a few times on The Line, "everything could change before we finish recording this."
As noted by Vaclav Smil the world is not going off oil and gas anytime soon without starving half the population. Canada’s carbon reduction efforts are eliminated by Chinese coal consumption. It is therefore nonsensical for Canada to cut off its main economic driver and alienate its western provinces for an ideology that makes no practical sense. Getting Canadian oil and gas to markets is the best way to both keep Canada together and help the planet.
To central and eastern Canadians, anything west of the Ontario border with perhaps the exception of the Vancouver metropolitan area is a foreign, alien land populated by people not smart or sophisticated enough to live in the great cities of Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa. They have no desire to get to know it, its people or to try and understand what goes on there, it simply isn’t worth their precious time. Canada isn’t a country held together by national pride, it’s held together force and habit. There is no respect in fact, more often than not, there’s derision and mockery. Western alienation is real but since it doesn’t affect Ontario and Quebec, it doesn’t matter. It’s just a bunch of ungrateful western whiners complaining again. Elbows up Canada, it’s time to save the Ontario auto industry! Oh and Alberta, keep the cash coming, we need to buy those Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada votes!
This is a very closed minded perspective. How many people do you know in Ontario? I know a lot and half of them have been to Alberta. Maybe that doesn’t reflect the full population, but I would argue the same percent of eastern Canada knows about western Canada as western Canada knows about eastern Canada. How much time have you spent out east? How well do you understand the politically nuanced landscape of Ontario? Your comment implies everyone is the same and just knows nothing, and quite frankly, that’s a narrow minded and incorrect view that only serves to harm Canada.
Well, strip-mining the west of wealth while simultaneously hobbling the western economy is a tried-and-true way to win votes in the east, so there's that. Tells you something about those voters east of Saskatchewan.
But as an Ontario resident, I feel way closer to Albertans than any of the eastern populations. Most likely because I've leaned Libertarian since I was 20 and generally hate government intervention.
In fact, if it was feasible for me to do so, I would move to Calgary in a heartbeat.
That makes it very lonely for me to live in Toronto, where Communism runs rampant.
I hear you brother. Having lived in Toronto and Ottawa I felt like a stranger is a strange land as the novel goes. As a gun owner when I raised the topic of gun confiscation I was considered worst than a child molester.
Agree, it's the voters in the urban areas who tend to lean left. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver and Victoria have famously ignored the rest of Canada since I was a kid. It's happening in Alberta too with a few NDP and Lib seats in Edmonton and Calgary, and they've been pretty inneffective to say the least in communicating how Albertans outside their ridings feel.
I was born and raised in central Canada, spent 15 years in Ontario before moving to Alberta. How is that for perspective? Out here, everyone knows pretty much everything about central and eastern Canada because that’s where a lot of Albertans are from but also, that’s all the media talks about since apparently it’s the only region that matters. The same cannot be said the other way around so yeah, there’s that!
Ice skater I can tell you from experience (30 years in Edmonton) that thanks to the Toronto-centric media, Albertans hear about every little thing that is on the minds of Ontarians.
I'm also in Edmonton. I don't believe that legacy media reflects the views of the masses of even those who live in Toronto. (I have worked for a company with a head office in Toronto and had co-workers who live in Toronto and the suburbs. They have many complex views that aren't reflected by the media.)
I feel strongly that it's very damaging to try and paint everyone who lives in Toronto to have the same views. It's no more true than saying everyone who lives in Edmonton votes NDP provincially. (I don't - but that doesn't change that my MLA is NDP and has been completely ineffective at representing our riding. But will probably get elected again because of propaganda.)
My point was that Albertans get the "narrative" that the Toronto-centric media dishes out. I know not everyone shares the same views (though enough to keep the LPC in power) but Edmontonians get much more Toronto news than Toronto gets Alberta news -- other than bashing Ms. Smith, Mr. Manning etc.
In all fairness there is significant support for the federal Liberal Party in Winnipeg. Some of the support is concentrated in bellwether ridings and a couple in reasonably safe seats. The resurgence of the Liberals nationally has been a significant boost to these ridings that showed every indication that they would flip blue in December.
There is a major disinformation campaign being circulated by the mid to far left as well. Claiming conservatives are anti-indigenous and will take people’s rights away and deport people illegally just like Trump. It’s ridiculous. I knew yelling into the wind wouldn’t do any good so held my tongue and didn’t bother telling the people sharing this long form “fact post” (filled with disinformation) that my conservative candidate is an indigenous chief. Somehow I’m guessing that wouldn’t fit so well with their narrative, but I also know they’re not so interested in anything that doesn’t support their narrative or they would’ve fact checked before sharing the nonsense. The irony isn’t lost on me that these are the same people who are so worried about misinformation.
The Liberals work in an echo chamber Group Think environment. That’s the downside of not electing any serious minded Liberal MPs from Saskatchewan and Alberta who would sit at the big table and bring balance to the conversation.
We have the added misfortune to have two consecutive Liberal Prime Ministers who are committed Net Zero fanatics. Carney talks a big game about pipelines in Alberta, but a close listening to his words in Montreal suggests that he is not abandoning his net zero ambitions and willing to hide behind Provinces, activists and Indigenous communities for social licence. Same old.
It is so disturbing to me that seemingly very few voters see Net-Zero as the absolute deal-breaker it should be. Canada getting to Net-Zero would not have even a negligible impact on global emissions. Why cripple our economy for no benefit? Rudimentary cost-benefit analysis ought to make emissions-caps DOA in *good* economic times; only a fanatic blinded by ideology could support emissions caps at this point in our history. My list of issues with PP is pretty long but at least he is (to my knowledge) on the right side of the emissions caps issue.
Hey bud, perhaps if you relaxed your perfectionist criteria and came closer to real life, PP might be acceptable to you. I am glad that otherwise you do acknowledge the practicality vs. fanaticism.
"Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good." I get it. I try to live by it.
That's not what I am doing here. The lowest of low-hanging fruit is tearing down supply management. PP is opposed to that. That is numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 on my list of issues with him. Is he a vastly superior option to Net-Zero Carney? 100%. But dismantling the cartels is table stakes here. And unlike some of my other issues with him, I don't buy that staking out that position would be an electoral loser for him.
I believe Mark Carney said, and I know I’m paraphrasing, it needs to stay in the ground to get to net-zero. His trust factor is well established. I believe him, because everything he has done since the Glasgow COP has supported that statement.
Agreed, he changed his decade long position in time to call an election. I do not trust this man. The lies about stupid trivial stuff roll off his tongue so easily I am sure he's lieing about the big stuff too. The minute he is elected he's all in for Net zero and stranding Alberta resource assets. As soon as he deems it acceptable he will also reverse his zero consumer CO2 tax.
A wet or dry, hot or cold, windy or calm summer with a few forest fires will be the harbinger of impending massive climate change. We'll capitulate quickly to The Donald so we can focus on the CO2 crisis. The current 150 CO2 schemes haven't worked so, well, we need 150 more.
Why did we stop talking about killing all the cattle? All the ungulates, for that matter. They all emit CO2. Death to the caribou.
Media: "Hey Mark Carney, didn't you say that all the Alberta oil has to stay in the ground, and you aren't going to repeal C-69 and are ok with emissions caps? Are these still your positions?"
Mark Carney: "Um, uh, yes, energy, economy, infrastructure, Bank of England, Trump, tariffs, Canada, uh, elbows up!"
The problem that most Canadians have is that they don't know the contribution that oil and gas makes to the balance of trade. Without it we go from barely keeping afloat to sinking like the Titanic.
Thank you for this thoughtful and timely article. It reminds me of the uneasy pact between medieval kings and their barons—where the crown might rule from the center, but its survival depended on keeping the shires from boiling over. Western alienation, like a restless marcher lord, has been simmering at the edges of Canadian politics for decades. While Preston Manning’s recent claim that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for western secession may sound like a war trumpet blown too loudly, it’s not without historical resonance. The west has long felt overruled and under-heard, especially when it comes to energy policy—and pretending otherwise only deepens the divide.
The article wisely acknowledges that Alberta’s distrust didn’t arise in a vacuum. The NEP in the '80s was a defining trauma—one many still remember with a visceral sense of betrayal. But even setting aside that bitter legacy, recent Liberal policies haven’t helped mend the wound. Bill C-69, often branded the “no new pipelines act,” was received not as a neutral environmental measure but as a direct blow to western livelihoods. Critics of that narrative often point to the Trudeau government’s purchase of the TMX pipeline as proof of federal support—but that defense is weak. The pipeline only needed public rescue because the regulatory environment made it economically unviable in the first place. It’s like a monarch claiming credit for saving a bridge after dynamiting its supports.
Even more damaging, perhaps, is the tone—an issue easy to overlook but powerful in its cumulative effect. Westerners don’t just hear policies; they hear contempt, or at least indifference. That’s not paranoia, it’s pattern recognition. When Ottawa appoints a climate minister with a deep activist pedigree or floats language like “phasing out the oil sands,” it sends a signal—not just of policy intent, but of cultural judgment. That’s hard to square with the fact that Alberta’s energy sector has often supported carbon pricing, provided it’s applied fairly and consistently. When one region feels targeted while others are spared, it evokes the medieval fear that the king governs for the court, not the country.
Nowhere is that more evident than in the proposed oil and gas emissions cap. Economically, it risks being inefficient—stacking costs on top of existing mechanisms, potentially forcing production cuts where other industries could more cheaply reduce emissions. Politically, it’s dynamite. It singles out the west, confirming suspicions that Ottawa sees Alberta’s prosperity not as a national asset, but as a moral liability. That may not be the intention, but perception matters. Some may argue that climate urgency requires bold action—but if boldness deepens regional division and undermines national cohesion, it’s not boldness, it’s blundering. A more effective path might lie in raising the national carbon price uniformly—still ambitious, but fairer, and far less inflammatory.
Like any good medieval king, a modern federal leader must know when to tax, when to appease, and when to ride out and speak directly to the aggrieved. Mark Carney’s resume may sparkle in the salons of Toronto and Davos, but it’s prairie soil that needs tilling. Repealing the emissions cap—or at the very least replacing it with a more equitable, economy-wide mechanism—would show westerners that the next sovereign governs for all his lands, not just the ones close to court. Because in the end, a crown that forgets its borders soon finds the drawbridge burned behind it.
CP, it seems to me that you are making the case for Preston Manning's assertion that electing the LPC to government will lead to we in the west looking firmly at succession.
I shake my head at those Canadians who think voting for the Liberals will somehow make them into different people and a different party than the people and party that drove Canada to the brink of a cliff the past decade.
I think Alberta/Western secession is a fever dream that lacks a coherent and realistic plan. If secessionists believe that we would get a better deal from the USA than we have from Canada, I think they're as delusional as those voting Liberal this month.
Canada is, as our Line Editors say (or at least used to say) is broken, and voting Liberal again won't change that, nor will wasting time chasing what used to be called Western Canada Concept.
Besides repealing the oil and gas cap, it is vital that bill C69 is repealed to remove the main regulatory hurdle that hamstrings the industry as well as Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Western alienation is real and Alberta and Saskatchewan separation is a real possibility.
At some point, hopefully soon, eastern Canadians will have to come to realize separation as a real possibility and change their attitudes towards us folks living in the West.
Eastern Canadians hold all the power ( Parliament seats ). Why would they want to change that? The federal election is basically over by the time the polls close west of the Ontario boarder.
We get to do what they say. Great for us right? How many years have the Liberals governed Canada since Confederation? So they've had plenty of opportunity over the past number of years to make some meaningful changes, but what have they done? Absolutely nothing.
A couple of Eastern Liberal MP's in the last couple of days suggested that if we wanted a voice for Western Canada that maybe we should start electing more Liberal MP's out West. Oh my God!
This is there thought process and their way of governing. Not for our country as a whole, but for their own interests.
Western Canadians are starting to look out for our own interests.
I don't know if there is a lot to say ex UK, Dean. We have heard a lot of criticism - but my take is it is from the pro-Brexit people who were incensed that Carney had the nerve to point out the many negatives of leaving the EU. And a lot of those negatives have come to pass.
I believe a politician once referred to him as the "bad girlfriend". Someone who was forever changing their mind and couldn't be counted on. This was in relation to interest rates, where he said one thing and did nothing?
Ultimately, he was unpopular, as opposed the preferable, unknown.
Just a couple of clarifications. The Federal Cabinet approved the TransMountain expansion twice. Following the first approval, Kinder Morgan issued an ultimatum because despite federal approval, opposition from BC, First Nations and environmentalists was continuing and there remained a lot of risk and uncertainty. The federal government bought the pipeline to de-risk the expansion. The Federal Court of Appeal then ruled that inadequate consultations with First Nations had been done so the federal government addressed that matter and then once the FCA was satisfied approved the pipeline again. There were multiple opportunities for the federal government to allow this project to fail.
Also, in 2017, the CEOs of four major oil sands companies representing the vast majority of Canada's oil production agreed to an emissions cap on oil sands with a coalition of prominent environmentalists that was adopted by the Alberta Government. Today, apparently the only way to work within a cap is to cut production. The problem with an emissions cap is that it is fiendishly difficult to allocate responsibility and to administer (as Alberta's Oil Sands Advisory Group found out when it was asked to flesh out how it would work) and for that reason alone it is an inefficient way to achieve results.
Hmmm. I was quite involved at the time, several of the participants were colleagues, and the deal between the oil sands CEOs and NGOs was brokered by a good friend. I got the date wrong, though. The deal between the CEOs and environmentalists was made in 2015. The Oil Sands Advisory Group, which was mandated to develop a mechanism to implement the agreed cap was established in 2016 (and I was involved in that process). The proposed Alberta regulations arose from that. https://energi.media/markham-on-energy/kenney-attacks-on-berman-are-payback-for-oil-sands-ceos-carbon-for-production-deal-with-engos/
Well said. It's really unfortunate how much misinformation is floating around about why particular projects were canceled, under which government or review process that happened, etc. And it's not helped by an election where both major parties are making promises about project approvals that almost certainly cannot be held.
I had some fun with an O&G colleague at an event a few months ago. Told him that Trudeau was the best Prime Minister the oil and gas sector ever had. They don't get credit for all the things they have actually done but get vilified for things they've said, haven't done or things people believe they might do. I'm not taking sides but the partisan split between Alberta/Saskatchewan and the Liberals prevents a rational, facts-based discussion of the issues.
Nope. Believe it or not you can put facts on the table without taking sides. My colleague actually agreed with all the facts I presented. If your starting position is partisan, however, then your conclusion is inevitable.
Canada exports 50Mt of coal, which produces 150Mt of CO2 when used. That is almost double emissions from the oil sands and is equivalent to more than 20% of Canada's total emissions. Why is it OK to export that much CO2 from BC coal but not from less CO2 intensive Alberta O&G?
I may have given it away by mentioning the provinces there.
Carney could start by burning his book literally and figuratively, telling his new environment minister duguid and counterpart wilkinson to shut up and let him do the talking, and address every one of the 9 points Danielle made with a full and honest response.
Professor Ragan, you write, "... don’t accept Mr. Manning’s claim that a Liberal victory means support for western secession ..."
I respectfully posit that Mr. Manning's claim is not simply that a LPC VICTORY would cause such support to increase but that a LPC VICTORY would result in the return of the "found-ins" [please consult the Criminal Code of Canada and, in particular, older uses of that phrase in the CC of C] and the ongoing approaches to policy by the LPC. Professor Ragan, you note that the previous government had a "style" and an "approach" to we in Alberta and Saskatchewan that was incredibly antagonistic and that we found incredibly offensive. So, please consider the following:
Given that a) a considerable number of the LPC candidates, including current cabinet members, are holdovers; b) if Carney should be victorious, it is likely that the cabinet and caucus would have very similar views to those of the previous government, simply by virtue of the people who are running having already stated their "ideas;" c) Carney has, himself, made his antagonistic views of oil and gas well known, whether in his book, in his speeches and as an advisor to the former PM; and d) Carney has himself already directly stated that he will not reverse many of the highly distasteful and wasteful policies of the previous government which we in the west - and you in this essay - have identified; well, Mr. Manning's shorthand description is justified.
Put differently, for the reasons above, it is entirely reasonable to assume that a new LPC government would have the same approaches as the old government. Therefore, it is a reasonable shorthand to assume that a new LPC government would cause a crisis of national unity with we in western Canada.
I strongly believe that PP and his messaging and lack of pivots along the way is causing serious harm to him. But, i tell ya, to see so many people willing to wash away all the grievances they had only 5 months ago just because the leader has been replaced to over see the same apparatus that has run the last decade, blows my mind. If Carney wins, we kind of get what we deserve. Does anyone really think he will build more pipelines or an energy corridor or even beat down the provincial trade barriers? Most of those things will evaporate as the Trump Tariff War fizzles out. He has not done most of what he has threatened and it is unlikely to get any worse than it is now. He threatens, pulls back, rinse and repeat. Carney will be able to just status quo the same thing with the same people. Its wild so many Canadians forgot that the Liberals were so bad at governing.
Hey everyone, I've just sent out a note, but there was a technical issue with this post this morning, now resolved. Anyone showing up here to tell us the text was garbled — we know! Thanks for flagging, and our apologies to Chris. Honestly don't know what happened.
I call election interference.
CCP, FSB or the North Koreans are onto the line.
It was ok in the email version. Must’ve been a glitch on the site.
0931 Eastern was when I first wondered how early was too early for a drink
Given your career choice, I would think you had answered that question a decade or two ago.
You’d be surprised. The old stereotypes are largely out of date, to whatever extent they were once true at all. The modern journalist is a shockingly clean-living creature.
But there are days, is all I’m saying.
I was thinking more about the tendency for things to go sideways in your business. As you have pointed out a few times on The Line, "everything could change before we finish recording this."
As noted by Vaclav Smil the world is not going off oil and gas anytime soon without starving half the population. Canada’s carbon reduction efforts are eliminated by Chinese coal consumption. It is therefore nonsensical for Canada to cut off its main economic driver and alienate its western provinces for an ideology that makes no practical sense. Getting Canadian oil and gas to markets is the best way to both keep Canada together and help the planet.
I would argue that Canada's survival depends on it.
If we have any pretence of staying a rich nation and even growing our collective wealth in the future, drill baby drill is the only way.
To central and eastern Canadians, anything west of the Ontario border with perhaps the exception of the Vancouver metropolitan area is a foreign, alien land populated by people not smart or sophisticated enough to live in the great cities of Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa. They have no desire to get to know it, its people or to try and understand what goes on there, it simply isn’t worth their precious time. Canada isn’t a country held together by national pride, it’s held together force and habit. There is no respect in fact, more often than not, there’s derision and mockery. Western alienation is real but since it doesn’t affect Ontario and Quebec, it doesn’t matter. It’s just a bunch of ungrateful western whiners complaining again. Elbows up Canada, it’s time to save the Ontario auto industry! Oh and Alberta, keep the cash coming, we need to buy those Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada votes!
This is a very closed minded perspective. How many people do you know in Ontario? I know a lot and half of them have been to Alberta. Maybe that doesn’t reflect the full population, but I would argue the same percent of eastern Canada knows about western Canada as western Canada knows about eastern Canada. How much time have you spent out east? How well do you understand the politically nuanced landscape of Ontario? Your comment implies everyone is the same and just knows nothing, and quite frankly, that’s a narrow minded and incorrect view that only serves to harm Canada.
Well, strip-mining the west of wealth while simultaneously hobbling the western economy is a tried-and-true way to win votes in the east, so there's that. Tells you something about those voters east of Saskatchewan.
I believe YMS comment was steeped in sarcasm.
But as an Ontario resident, I feel way closer to Albertans than any of the eastern populations. Most likely because I've leaned Libertarian since I was 20 and generally hate government intervention.
In fact, if it was feasible for me to do so, I would move to Calgary in a heartbeat.
That makes it very lonely for me to live in Toronto, where Communism runs rampant.
I hear you brother. Having lived in Toronto and Ottawa I felt like a stranger is a strange land as the novel goes. As a gun owner when I raised the topic of gun confiscation I was considered worst than a child molester.
Aside from a few close friends, I don't even bother try to get involved in political conversations.
I just politely nod and spit some bromide that doesn't rock the boat too much.
There is no point in doing anything else.
Agree, it's the voters in the urban areas who tend to lean left. Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver and Victoria have famously ignored the rest of Canada since I was a kid. It's happening in Alberta too with a few NDP and Lib seats in Edmonton and Calgary, and they've been pretty inneffective to say the least in communicating how Albertans outside their ridings feel.
I was born and raised in central Canada, spent 15 years in Ontario before moving to Alberta. How is that for perspective? Out here, everyone knows pretty much everything about central and eastern Canada because that’s where a lot of Albertans are from but also, that’s all the media talks about since apparently it’s the only region that matters. The same cannot be said the other way around so yeah, there’s that!
Ice skater I can tell you from experience (30 years in Edmonton) that thanks to the Toronto-centric media, Albertans hear about every little thing that is on the minds of Ontarians.
I'm also in Edmonton. I don't believe that legacy media reflects the views of the masses of even those who live in Toronto. (I have worked for a company with a head office in Toronto and had co-workers who live in Toronto and the suburbs. They have many complex views that aren't reflected by the media.)
I feel strongly that it's very damaging to try and paint everyone who lives in Toronto to have the same views. It's no more true than saying everyone who lives in Edmonton votes NDP provincially. (I don't - but that doesn't change that my MLA is NDP and has been completely ineffective at representing our riding. But will probably get elected again because of propaganda.)
My point was that Albertans get the "narrative" that the Toronto-centric media dishes out. I know not everyone shares the same views (though enough to keep the LPC in power) but Edmontonians get much more Toronto news than Toronto gets Alberta news -- other than bashing Ms. Smith, Mr. Manning etc.
In all fairness there is significant support for the federal Liberal Party in Winnipeg. Some of the support is concentrated in bellwether ridings and a couple in reasonably safe seats. The resurgence of the Liberals nationally has been a significant boost to these ridings that showed every indication that they would flip blue in December.
There is a major disinformation campaign being circulated by the mid to far left as well. Claiming conservatives are anti-indigenous and will take people’s rights away and deport people illegally just like Trump. It’s ridiculous. I knew yelling into the wind wouldn’t do any good so held my tongue and didn’t bother telling the people sharing this long form “fact post” (filled with disinformation) that my conservative candidate is an indigenous chief. Somehow I’m guessing that wouldn’t fit so well with their narrative, but I also know they’re not so interested in anything that doesn’t support their narrative or they would’ve fact checked before sharing the nonsense. The irony isn’t lost on me that these are the same people who are so worried about misinformation.
And the laurentian dairy and poultry farmers who are much more important than beef, pork, wheat and canola producers.
Eastern votes matter much more to them than western votes.
Well, there are more of them.
Yup!
The Liberals work in an echo chamber Group Think environment. That’s the downside of not electing any serious minded Liberal MPs from Saskatchewan and Alberta who would sit at the big table and bring balance to the conversation.
We have the added misfortune to have two consecutive Liberal Prime Ministers who are committed Net Zero fanatics. Carney talks a big game about pipelines in Alberta, but a close listening to his words in Montreal suggests that he is not abandoning his net zero ambitions and willing to hide behind Provinces, activists and Indigenous communities for social licence. Same old.
It is so disturbing to me that seemingly very few voters see Net-Zero as the absolute deal-breaker it should be. Canada getting to Net-Zero would not have even a negligible impact on global emissions. Why cripple our economy for no benefit? Rudimentary cost-benefit analysis ought to make emissions-caps DOA in *good* economic times; only a fanatic blinded by ideology could support emissions caps at this point in our history. My list of issues with PP is pretty long but at least he is (to my knowledge) on the right side of the emissions caps issue.
Hey bud, perhaps if you relaxed your perfectionist criteria and came closer to real life, PP might be acceptable to you. I am glad that otherwise you do acknowledge the practicality vs. fanaticism.
"Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good." I get it. I try to live by it.
That's not what I am doing here. The lowest of low-hanging fruit is tearing down supply management. PP is opposed to that. That is numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 on my list of issues with him. Is he a vastly superior option to Net-Zero Carney? 100%. But dismantling the cartels is table stakes here. And unlike some of my other issues with him, I don't buy that staking out that position would be an electoral loser for him.
I believe Mark Carney said, and I know I’m paraphrasing, it needs to stay in the ground to get to net-zero. His trust factor is well established. I believe him, because everything he has done since the Glasgow COP has supported that statement.
Agreed, he changed his decade long position in time to call an election. I do not trust this man. The lies about stupid trivial stuff roll off his tongue so easily I am sure he's lieing about the big stuff too. The minute he is elected he's all in for Net zero and stranding Alberta resource assets. As soon as he deems it acceptable he will also reverse his zero consumer CO2 tax.
A wet or dry, hot or cold, windy or calm summer with a few forest fires will be the harbinger of impending massive climate change. We'll capitulate quickly to The Donald so we can focus on the CO2 crisis. The current 150 CO2 schemes haven't worked so, well, we need 150 more.
Why did we stop talking about killing all the cattle? All the ungulates, for that matter. They all emit CO2. Death to the caribou.
We omit CO2. I hope we get a pass.
Media: "Hey Mark Carney, didn't you say that all the Alberta oil has to stay in the ground, and you aren't going to repeal C-69 and are ok with emissions caps? Are these still your positions?"
Mark Carney: "Um, uh, yes, energy, economy, infrastructure, Bank of England, Trump, tariffs, Canada, uh, elbows up!"
Media: "Ok then no further questions!"
Boomers: "Wooooo Mark Carney!"
The problem that most Canadians have is that they don't know the contribution that oil and gas makes to the balance of trade. Without it we go from barely keeping afloat to sinking like the Titanic.
Snow pesos.
Thank you for this thoughtful and timely article. It reminds me of the uneasy pact between medieval kings and their barons—where the crown might rule from the center, but its survival depended on keeping the shires from boiling over. Western alienation, like a restless marcher lord, has been simmering at the edges of Canadian politics for decades. While Preston Manning’s recent claim that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for western secession may sound like a war trumpet blown too loudly, it’s not without historical resonance. The west has long felt overruled and under-heard, especially when it comes to energy policy—and pretending otherwise only deepens the divide.
The article wisely acknowledges that Alberta’s distrust didn’t arise in a vacuum. The NEP in the '80s was a defining trauma—one many still remember with a visceral sense of betrayal. But even setting aside that bitter legacy, recent Liberal policies haven’t helped mend the wound. Bill C-69, often branded the “no new pipelines act,” was received not as a neutral environmental measure but as a direct blow to western livelihoods. Critics of that narrative often point to the Trudeau government’s purchase of the TMX pipeline as proof of federal support—but that defense is weak. The pipeline only needed public rescue because the regulatory environment made it economically unviable in the first place. It’s like a monarch claiming credit for saving a bridge after dynamiting its supports.
Even more damaging, perhaps, is the tone—an issue easy to overlook but powerful in its cumulative effect. Westerners don’t just hear policies; they hear contempt, or at least indifference. That’s not paranoia, it’s pattern recognition. When Ottawa appoints a climate minister with a deep activist pedigree or floats language like “phasing out the oil sands,” it sends a signal—not just of policy intent, but of cultural judgment. That’s hard to square with the fact that Alberta’s energy sector has often supported carbon pricing, provided it’s applied fairly and consistently. When one region feels targeted while others are spared, it evokes the medieval fear that the king governs for the court, not the country.
Nowhere is that more evident than in the proposed oil and gas emissions cap. Economically, it risks being inefficient—stacking costs on top of existing mechanisms, potentially forcing production cuts where other industries could more cheaply reduce emissions. Politically, it’s dynamite. It singles out the west, confirming suspicions that Ottawa sees Alberta’s prosperity not as a national asset, but as a moral liability. That may not be the intention, but perception matters. Some may argue that climate urgency requires bold action—but if boldness deepens regional division and undermines national cohesion, it’s not boldness, it’s blundering. A more effective path might lie in raising the national carbon price uniformly—still ambitious, but fairer, and far less inflammatory.
Like any good medieval king, a modern federal leader must know when to tax, when to appease, and when to ride out and speak directly to the aggrieved. Mark Carney’s resume may sparkle in the salons of Toronto and Davos, but it’s prairie soil that needs tilling. Repealing the emissions cap—or at the very least replacing it with a more equitable, economy-wide mechanism—would show westerners that the next sovereign governs for all his lands, not just the ones close to court. Because in the end, a crown that forgets its borders soon finds the drawbridge burned behind it.
Very well stated.
Agree with Christopher completely.
Mark Carney's Liberals, after they win, will do the exact opposite of what Christopher advises.
CP, it seems to me that you are making the case for Preston Manning's assertion that electing the LPC to government will lead to we in the west looking firmly at succession.
Not at all.
I shake my head at those Canadians who think voting for the Liberals will somehow make them into different people and a different party than the people and party that drove Canada to the brink of a cliff the past decade.
I think Alberta/Western secession is a fever dream that lacks a coherent and realistic plan. If secessionists believe that we would get a better deal from the USA than we have from Canada, I think they're as delusional as those voting Liberal this month.
Canada is, as our Line Editors say (or at least used to say) is broken, and voting Liberal again won't change that, nor will wasting time chasing what used to be called Western Canada Concept.
Besides repealing the oil and gas cap, it is vital that bill C69 is repealed to remove the main regulatory hurdle that hamstrings the industry as well as Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Western alienation is real and Alberta and Saskatchewan separation is a real possibility.
At some point, hopefully soon, eastern Canadians will have to come to realize separation as a real possibility and change their attitudes towards us folks living in the West.
Eastern Canadians hold all the power ( Parliament seats ). Why would they want to change that? The federal election is basically over by the time the polls close west of the Ontario boarder.
We get to do what they say. Great for us right? How many years have the Liberals governed Canada since Confederation? So they've had plenty of opportunity over the past number of years to make some meaningful changes, but what have they done? Absolutely nothing.
A couple of Eastern Liberal MP's in the last couple of days suggested that if we wanted a voice for Western Canada that maybe we should start electing more Liberal MP's out West. Oh my God!
This is there thought process and their way of governing. Not for our country as a whole, but for their own interests.
Western Canadians are starting to look out for our own interests.
We do not hear enough from the UK on their opinions re: Mark Carney. Challenge to G&G. Let’s hear from over the pond.
I don't know if there is a lot to say ex UK, Dean. We have heard a lot of criticism - but my take is it is from the pro-Brexit people who were incensed that Carney had the nerve to point out the many negatives of leaving the EU. And a lot of those negatives have come to pass.
I believe a politician once referred to him as the "bad girlfriend". Someone who was forever changing their mind and couldn't be counted on. This was in relation to interest rates, where he said one thing and did nothing?
Ultimately, he was unpopular, as opposed the preferable, unknown.
In case you missed where he invests: https://www.thetimes.com/article/86186fa4-d518-4478-82a9-ff821091ec25
And for your amusement: https://www.thetimes.com/article/ceec748c-6004-11ec-b5a9-cc132ef95ea9
Just a couple of clarifications. The Federal Cabinet approved the TransMountain expansion twice. Following the first approval, Kinder Morgan issued an ultimatum because despite federal approval, opposition from BC, First Nations and environmentalists was continuing and there remained a lot of risk and uncertainty. The federal government bought the pipeline to de-risk the expansion. The Federal Court of Appeal then ruled that inadequate consultations with First Nations had been done so the federal government addressed that matter and then once the FCA was satisfied approved the pipeline again. There were multiple opportunities for the federal government to allow this project to fail.
Also, in 2017, the CEOs of four major oil sands companies representing the vast majority of Canada's oil production agreed to an emissions cap on oil sands with a coalition of prominent environmentalists that was adopted by the Alberta Government. Today, apparently the only way to work within a cap is to cut production. The problem with an emissions cap is that it is fiendishly difficult to allocate responsibility and to administer (as Alberta's Oil Sands Advisory Group found out when it was asked to flesh out how it would work) and for that reason alone it is an inefficient way to achieve results.
Correction, In 2017, the oil execs were pressured into accepting an emissions cap by Rachel Notley, thankfully she is NOT our Premier anymore
Hmmm. I was quite involved at the time, several of the participants were colleagues, and the deal between the oil sands CEOs and NGOs was brokered by a good friend. I got the date wrong, though. The deal between the CEOs and environmentalists was made in 2015. The Oil Sands Advisory Group, which was mandated to develop a mechanism to implement the agreed cap was established in 2016 (and I was involved in that process). The proposed Alberta regulations arose from that. https://energi.media/markham-on-energy/kenney-attacks-on-berman-are-payback-for-oil-sands-ceos-carbon-for-production-deal-with-engos/
Well said. It's really unfortunate how much misinformation is floating around about why particular projects were canceled, under which government or review process that happened, etc. And it's not helped by an election where both major parties are making promises about project approvals that almost certainly cannot be held.
I had some fun with an O&G colleague at an event a few months ago. Told him that Trudeau was the best Prime Minister the oil and gas sector ever had. They don't get credit for all the things they have actually done but get vilified for things they've said, haven't done or things people believe they might do. I'm not taking sides but the partisan split between Alberta/Saskatchewan and the Liberals prevents a rational, facts-based discussion of the issues.
I'm assuming your colleague just walked away from you shaking his head in disbelief. I would say you were taking sides base on what you said.
Nope. Believe it or not you can put facts on the table without taking sides. My colleague actually agreed with all the facts I presented. If your starting position is partisan, however, then your conclusion is inevitable.
Canada exports 50Mt of coal, which produces 150Mt of CO2 when used. That is almost double emissions from the oil sands and is equivalent to more than 20% of Canada's total emissions. Why is it OK to export that much CO2 from BC coal but not from less CO2 intensive Alberta O&G?
I may have given it away by mentioning the provinces there.
Carney could start by burning his book literally and figuratively, telling his new environment minister duguid and counterpart wilkinson to shut up and let him do the talking, and address every one of the 9 points Danielle made with a full and honest response.
Well, HS, he could ....
But, you know, woulda, coulda, shoulda ... But, dammit, didn't/won't do any of them.
Professor Ragan, you write, "... don’t accept Mr. Manning’s claim that a Liberal victory means support for western secession ..."
I respectfully posit that Mr. Manning's claim is not simply that a LPC VICTORY would cause such support to increase but that a LPC VICTORY would result in the return of the "found-ins" [please consult the Criminal Code of Canada and, in particular, older uses of that phrase in the CC of C] and the ongoing approaches to policy by the LPC. Professor Ragan, you note that the previous government had a "style" and an "approach" to we in Alberta and Saskatchewan that was incredibly antagonistic and that we found incredibly offensive. So, please consider the following:
Given that a) a considerable number of the LPC candidates, including current cabinet members, are holdovers; b) if Carney should be victorious, it is likely that the cabinet and caucus would have very similar views to those of the previous government, simply by virtue of the people who are running having already stated their "ideas;" c) Carney has, himself, made his antagonistic views of oil and gas well known, whether in his book, in his speeches and as an advisor to the former PM; and d) Carney has himself already directly stated that he will not reverse many of the highly distasteful and wasteful policies of the previous government which we in the west - and you in this essay - have identified; well, Mr. Manning's shorthand description is justified.
Put differently, for the reasons above, it is entirely reasonable to assume that a new LPC government would have the same approaches as the old government. Therefore, it is a reasonable shorthand to assume that a new LPC government would cause a crisis of national unity with we in western Canada.
I strongly believe that PP and his messaging and lack of pivots along the way is causing serious harm to him. But, i tell ya, to see so many people willing to wash away all the grievances they had only 5 months ago just because the leader has been replaced to over see the same apparatus that has run the last decade, blows my mind. If Carney wins, we kind of get what we deserve. Does anyone really think he will build more pipelines or an energy corridor or even beat down the provincial trade barriers? Most of those things will evaporate as the Trump Tariff War fizzles out. He has not done most of what he has threatened and it is unlikely to get any worse than it is now. He threatens, pulls back, rinse and repeat. Carney will be able to just status quo the same thing with the same people. Its wild so many Canadians forgot that the Liberals were so bad at governing.