A pot pourri of The Line articles and readers comments from several sources on this mater.
The funding for this pipeline seems to be all "smoke and mirrors." There are no private enterprise companies mentioned in connection with this project..... none. Let’s dispense with the fantasy at the heart of this report: the notion that Canada is on the cusp of some renaissance in private sector risk capital magically materializing to build major infrastructure. The authors seem determined to ignore the last decade of evidence — evidence showing that private investors have all but abandoned large scale Canadian projects because the political, regulatory, and financial environment has become utterly inhospitable.
The report’s cheery optimism about “unlocking private capital” is indistinguishable from wishful thinking. Investors aren’t lining up to pour billions into projects that take 12 years to approve, 4 years to litigate, and another 3 years to renegotiate after a change in government. They’re not interested in jurisdictions where regulatory certainty is a punchline and where political actors treat major projects as bargaining chips in intergovernmental melodrama. The private sector isn’t confused; it’s gone. And it’s not coming back until Canada stops treating capital like a suspicious foreign intruder.
So what’s the report’s solution? More government money, naturally — as if Ottawa’s balance sheet were an infinite well rather than a fiscal crater. Canada is already staggering under a debt load that is growing faster than its GDP, its productivity, and its political courage. The idea that the federal government should shovel even more public dollars into megaprojects because private investors have fled is not just economically reckless; it’s delusional.
Every additional billion Ottawa borrows to compensate for the absence of private capital is another billion added to a debt crisis that is already eroding Canada’s long term stability. Interest payments are now one of the fastest growing line items in the federal budget. We are borrowing money to service the money we borrowed to replace the money the private sector refuses to invest. This is not a strategy. It’s a spiral.
And while the report pretends that government funding is some kind of patriotic backstop, the truth is far less flattering: public dollars are being used to mask the fact that Canada has become structurally incapable of attracting private investment for major projects. That is the real crisis — not the absence of capital, but the absence of conditions under which capital would willingly participate.
The Line’s discussion of the pipeline deal underscores the absurdity. If the “logical outcome” was always to follow the existing corridor, why did it take years of political theatre, interprovincial brinkmanship, and federal hand wringing to arrive at the obvious? Because Canada has built a system where even the simplest infrastructure decision becomes a saga. And sagas are exactly what private capital avoids.
The report’s authors may be content to pretend that government funding can fill the void indefinitely. But Canadians should not be. Every dollar of public money poured into projects the private sector refuses to touch is a dollar borrowed against a future that is already shrinking. The debt crisis is not hypothetical. It is here, it is accelerating, and it is being worsened by precisely the kind of thinking this report embodies.
This is the real problem. Canada doesn’t need more government money. It needs a government capable of creating conditions where private capital would willingly return. Until then, the country will continue stumbling forward on borrowed funds, borrowed time, and borrowed credibility — all while congratulating itself for “getting things built” that no rational investor would finance....Amen.
Bingo!!!! When the original MOU was signed almost a year ago I called it political theater and wagered that no new line would be built in my lifetime. And if it is eventually built under this Govt it will be as a Federal public project. This Govt is effectively sneaking Nationalization through the back door, like Sask CCF Govts of the 50's and 60's.
These ideological zealots refuse to see that everything they do confirms in the Financial world's minds that there is no future in this country for mega resource projects because only an idiot would invest billions on a wish and a prayer. Actions speak louder than words, but all the world's big investors are getting is same old, same old, coming from the mouth of a new suit.
Canadians - or at least their permanent one-party government, most of the media, and broad demographics insulated from reality in various ways - have total disdain for the very concept of making the country attractive to private sector investment. Why would we want to make life easier for gross icky rich people and evil corporations?
Government is the only real, pure source of economic activity, who can employ the correct number of consultants, lawyers, academics and activists to make sure that every blade of grass is properly consulted before any project can proceed (and often during and after as well!).
Building a pipeline and collecting revenue from it could be a reasonable strategy if the government wasn't so poor at managing money. The last I heard, TMX was unlikely to make money. The genius who managed that disaster now heads up our Major Projects Office.
Also, look at Canada's legalized marijuana regime (note the term "regime," not "market" or "industry") the only one in the world that loses money (or barely earns any) for its participants, except of course the federal government itself.
Massive Canadian infrastructure projects usually had a role for government, because our geography makes north-south infrastructure more economic than east-west.
Now, instead of the primary barriers to east-west infrastructure being physical and geographical, they are regulatory and self-imposed. The solution to that is not sacks of taxpayers' money.
.....well said. Carney's mistaken ideology of Dirigisme, will in the end, have Canada taxpayers pay for a hugely larger government bureaucracy, which is why this doctrine has failed in those economies that adopted this economic model, France being one such economy. Dirigisme in France from 1945 to 1975 centered on indicative planning, state-directed investment, and the creation of national champions in key industries. The state also used subsidies, credit policies, and regulation to guide industrialization and protect strategic sectors. Dirigisme failed due to the increased complexities of a highly competitive and internationalized economy, which describes todays economic picture, because of the limited strategic planning capacities of bureaucratic state technocrats. Additionally, this doctrine leads to uncompetitive enterprises and economic stagnation, seen before in the 1980s in France and the bursting of the Asian bubble economy in the late 1990s. This is where Carney is taking Canada, deeper and deeper into an expanding federal bureaucracy making all business endevours dependent on taxpayer-paid-initiatives and business beholden to a central government. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and has rolled in the Trojan Horse of this ideology into major projects in Canada, which should be funded by private enterprise, not government subsidies with tax payer monies. 🤔
This is all to appeal to the Eastern Canadian political and economic sensibilities. This is what Carney's base wants, especially the boomers. They think that with a government directed economy we will finally be able to show up the Americans AND keep the freebies flowing. It's the boomer dream.
The various levels of Canadian government have sufficiently screwed up the regulatory approval process that private capital sees too much risk to invest in projects. That puts Canadian governments in the position of having to fund those projects in order to do it and/or demonstrate that they've sufficiently reformed the regulatory process that it can now be done. It's a disgrace to be here, but something like this is probably necessary in order to unscrew ourselves.
It also feels very Canadian in some ways, like Louis Hebert creating a farm in Quebec to show the other settlers that it could be done, or the federal government subsidizing the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Trans-Canada Pipeline.
"The funding for this pipeline seems to be all "smoke and mirrors." There are no private enterprise companies mentioned in connection with this project..... none. "... **Goes to check the press announcement**, Ah, I do seem Pembina is participating, that's a private sector company, and it is in fact involved. I saw no reason to read on more, can't imagine the rest of the rant is any better researched.
It's impolite tell someone they don't have the benefit of the doubt and Canadians are nothing if not polite.
One of Canada's cultural flaws IMHO is that we give the benefit of the doubt to those who we think have our best interests at heart. It's vestigial colonial in group thinking.
There is a reason why Alberta independence talk hasn't driven business away. (In fact investment is up in Alberta). Canada was already in a sorry state.
I can't figure out why so many are still giving so much credit to the Carney Liberals for what amount to announcements.
It's like congratulating your friend's derelict kid for announcing that he's thinking about applying to law school: 'Uh, great start buddy but get back to me when you've got an admissions letter in hand or better yet when you actually get the degree, finish articling, and someone hires you as a lawyer. See you in like 5 years minimum and I'll hold off any serious praise until then, knowing you'll most likely just go back to getting baked and playing online shooter games in your parents' basement.' The Liberal government is that derelict kid.
So far, his accomplishments have focused on expanding the powers of his government. A pipeline doesn't do that, so I suspect this is another bullshit MOU.
Regina switched “Buffalo Days” for “Queen City Ex”and Edmonton changed “Klondike Days” for something pedestrian. So us Prairie Folk are not immune to Toronto like silliness.
There's lots of summer exhibitions across the country, but none of them have the same cultural footprint as the Stampede in Calgary. And that's OK - I think Matt Gurney fixates too much on the idea of One Big Festival as critical to civic culture and civil society. Toronto has dozens of festivals and celebrations drawing from different parts of the population, and that's a sign of a healthy culture. Those festivals and events are also open to *everybody*, which is a great way to share cultures and build community.
One thing that Matt and Jen didn't talk about was that the Stampede is also kind of crowds out other festivals: it's the One Big Mega Event every summer. There's other festivals too, of course, but they aren't as numerous and don't draw the crowds seen at comparable events in other cities.
I grow impatient with this talk of Canada lacking its own identifiable culture that, apparently, is a sign of national failure in some way. What nonsense to suggest that Toronto try to import the Calgary Stampede. The Stampede is evidence of not only Calgary and Albert’s culture, and it should remain as such, but a huge part of Canada’s culture. No need to import it and cheapen it; all Canadian’s are welcome to participate. That is the meaning of being Canadian. We are a huge country, with diversity in cultures throughout. Surely we have moved past the heavy anchors of Upper and Lower Canada; interesting history but boring in comparison to what we now have. Give me the life and the ability to experience such a wide diversity of people and cultures without having to leave my own country. It is a marvel. Our national identity is revealed through our people. And it is dynamic, thankfully.
Do we really need another pipeline to the west coast?? Why not to the east coast and displace all that offshore crude that is coming by tanker up the St. Lawrence. Now that might even been seen as a nation building project as opposed to building one to the west coast and providing China with more oil.
I'm going to hope this is a rhetorical question, because the obvious answer is "Quebec". Just overcoming previous Quebec political resistance to building pipelines is an achievement. Putting a pipeline through Quebec would be a greater political challenge of another order of magnitude.
So, if the objective is to increase shipping capacity for Alberta oil, another pipeline on the TMX route seems to be the easiest way to tick the box. Is it ideal? No. Will it get the job done? Yes. And also, it's not necessarily just shipping oil to China. I think a lot of people have missed the recent announcement that *Germany* has struck a deal for LNG exports from the West Coast: it's a heck of a detour through the Panama Canal instead of just crossing the Atlantic, but it illustrates that once you've got your product to tidewater, it becomes feasible to ship it to a lot of different markets.
They could have had that shipping by rail 7 years ago. Dilbit is not Bakken crude, so the Lac-Mégantic argument doesn't hold up. Jason Kenney killed that idea at a cost of billions in cancellation fees.
So true, so rarely mentioned. That said, most politicians can not contain themselves when it comes to seeing nothing but bad in a previous politicians decisions. In this case, Jason was a prime example.
I am not familiar with the whole 1150 Km TMX pipeline route, but having traveled the Coquihalla many times during TMX construction and after, I am familiar with the TMX route from Coquihalla Summit to West of Hope. I have also worked on routing for many smaller diameter pipelines. There will be some significant engineering challenges trying to shoehorn another pipe into the Valley that already contains the Coldwater River, a 4 Lane Highway and two large diameter pipes. The challenge is not only the limited room in the Valley, but also any construction activity cannot destabilize the Valley slopes and the integrity of the existing Pipes. Once West of Hope there is the TransCanada Highway where TMX went under the West Bound Curb Lane twice and other tight spots between Rock Faces, Hwy 1 and Fraser River. It can all be engineered and constructed, but costs will be many $$$$$$.
Then there is the Green Field pipeline route from around Sumas navigating through Surrey and Delta to Roberts Bank, roughly 80 Kms. All engineering doable, but it will take time to deal with Land Owners and assess a Green Field pipeline route for environmental and technical considerations. $$$$
And then there is the loading terminal and tank farm to be built near Roberts Bank. Another Island would need to be constructed, similar to Roberts Bank Coal Terminal, and this would be in Tsawwassen IR Territory. $$$$$
I think its apparent, the Southern Route was taken for political reasons, the tanker ban was never going to come off and the pipeline had to go South if Carney wanted Eby to not object to a West Coast Oil Pipeline. And I don't see a private company coming forward to build the pipeline until the route is defined and costs (realistic please!!!!!) are refined.
And then there will be the question of tolls. TMX is making money for shippers but a loser for TMX because they can't recover the increased cost of construction with increased tolls. With construction costs for the new TMX at least 40 Billion (vs 34 Bill for TMX), will the economics for shippers allow for payment of larger tolls for the new TMX?
On the good side, a deep water Loading Terminal at Roberts Bank would allow for larger vessels. I would think that would be a big plus for the Southern Route economics.
With backing alignment of Feds and Province ( a rarity in Canada), good things should happen. I hope this is one of those rare projects.
If you are going to move across the border, just go south from Alberta, ignore the blackmail BC is charging, and once in the US then push the pipeline to the west coast.
Tell the rest of Canada that AB tried to be a good citizen but was deeply screwed over last time. Bribe us like you are BC, and we may consider it. No, I don't care if the US has control of our crude. We tried in good faith and were kick and sneered at by bad faith actors (hello Justine Trudeau).
Pay us and buff our shoes. We may re-consider. Smith it going about this all the wrong way.
The elephant in the room with this pipeline deal is Section 35 of the Constitution and the need to have unanimous consent amid dozens of indigenous bands along the route. Carney can play ball with the provinces. At the end of the day the pipeline is federal jurisdiction and he has the power to steamroll it over any provincial objections. Not so with S35 obligations. I suspect we will now see the cheque book open and "consultation" will occur. It is for these reasons that no private backer has stepped forward. Who, other than the government, would take the risk of spending billions with a high likelihood of the courts throwing it back in your face. 2nd, what private projects are still viable in this country if they need to include a payoff of these magnitudes. Until this country addresses S35, get used to governments bankrolling most major investments. I suspect Carney understands this.
Wish I shared your optimism about the effect of this deal on Albertans.
Alas, I predict that this development, and any other coming from Ottawa, will fail to console a people and province whose very sense of self depends on remaining unconsoled.
Eby has completely taken Carney's pants down. He knows the eco's and some indigenous groups will go to the wall to oppose any pipeline. They will do Eby's dirty work for him. He will sit back, let others try to kill this while still getting billions after billions from the fed's. I spent the last couple weeks in BC, and that's how my NDP friends there see this shaking down.
Meanwhile, Smith goes begging for a pipeline. She should have proposed building straight south into the US and then to an American export terminal. Force the fed's come to her. Instead she was like a dog that immediately rolls over and exposes their belly to the alpha in the pack. Once again, AB and AB companies will do the work while others take the gravy.
This, they could have simply started building - a YEAR ago.
There was nothing really magical about the politics of it, and in terms of measuring up to the "build build build" zeitgeist of the last election, this announcement falls completely flat.
Somehow, the original TransMountain got built in just 30 months from a standing start - using 1950s technology - but the guy who was going to "build at generational speeds" needed almost 18 months of talking before he could decide on a route - which turns out to be the same route we JUST got finished building.
...and now we need ANOTHER year or more to do the environmental studies and FN consultations.
But that TransMountain corridor has been studied and "consulted" already - fully! From end to end, this is an established corridor, with two pipelines currently operating in it.
WHY do we need to start all over with all the assessments? Why is additional consultation required?
2, maybe 3, themes kept bugging me as I listened to the podcast.
The Stampede as a unifying force in Alberta. In the ancient past of my memory this was not so. For young Edmontonians Calgary was where you turned right on the way to Banff. Has so much changed that Calgary is the mecca even for the northern part of the province? Of course Edmonton envied the Stampede. Klondike Days were fun but never in the same league as a LOCAL event.
The joke about dropping Gordie Howe's name from the bridge: calculated -or just unconscious- to annoy anyone who grew up with 6 team pro hockey? Fine with the rest but leave Gordie's name in the mix!
World Cup hosting: There is no way the economic spinoffs from this come close to meeting the public costs. There may have been a bit of extra buzz in Toronto and Vancouver from having games here. But, at least in Toronto, the world cup is always a great big deal. Were more people wearing jerseys or filling the sports bars than in 2022? I'm sure it was great for our team to play at home in front of supporters.
A pot pourri of The Line articles and readers comments from several sources on this mater.
The funding for this pipeline seems to be all "smoke and mirrors." There are no private enterprise companies mentioned in connection with this project..... none. Let’s dispense with the fantasy at the heart of this report: the notion that Canada is on the cusp of some renaissance in private sector risk capital magically materializing to build major infrastructure. The authors seem determined to ignore the last decade of evidence — evidence showing that private investors have all but abandoned large scale Canadian projects because the political, regulatory, and financial environment has become utterly inhospitable.
The report’s cheery optimism about “unlocking private capital” is indistinguishable from wishful thinking. Investors aren’t lining up to pour billions into projects that take 12 years to approve, 4 years to litigate, and another 3 years to renegotiate after a change in government. They’re not interested in jurisdictions where regulatory certainty is a punchline and where political actors treat major projects as bargaining chips in intergovernmental melodrama. The private sector isn’t confused; it’s gone. And it’s not coming back until Canada stops treating capital like a suspicious foreign intruder.
So what’s the report’s solution? More government money, naturally — as if Ottawa’s balance sheet were an infinite well rather than a fiscal crater. Canada is already staggering under a debt load that is growing faster than its GDP, its productivity, and its political courage. The idea that the federal government should shovel even more public dollars into megaprojects because private investors have fled is not just economically reckless; it’s delusional.
Every additional billion Ottawa borrows to compensate for the absence of private capital is another billion added to a debt crisis that is already eroding Canada’s long term stability. Interest payments are now one of the fastest growing line items in the federal budget. We are borrowing money to service the money we borrowed to replace the money the private sector refuses to invest. This is not a strategy. It’s a spiral.
And while the report pretends that government funding is some kind of patriotic backstop, the truth is far less flattering: public dollars are being used to mask the fact that Canada has become structurally incapable of attracting private investment for major projects. That is the real crisis — not the absence of capital, but the absence of conditions under which capital would willingly participate.
The Line’s discussion of the pipeline deal underscores the absurdity. If the “logical outcome” was always to follow the existing corridor, why did it take years of political theatre, interprovincial brinkmanship, and federal hand wringing to arrive at the obvious? Because Canada has built a system where even the simplest infrastructure decision becomes a saga. And sagas are exactly what private capital avoids.
The report’s authors may be content to pretend that government funding can fill the void indefinitely. But Canadians should not be. Every dollar of public money poured into projects the private sector refuses to touch is a dollar borrowed against a future that is already shrinking. The debt crisis is not hypothetical. It is here, it is accelerating, and it is being worsened by precisely the kind of thinking this report embodies.
This is the real problem. Canada doesn’t need more government money. It needs a government capable of creating conditions where private capital would willingly return. Until then, the country will continue stumbling forward on borrowed funds, borrowed time, and borrowed credibility — all while congratulating itself for “getting things built” that no rational investor would finance....Amen.
Bingo!!!! When the original MOU was signed almost a year ago I called it political theater and wagered that no new line would be built in my lifetime. And if it is eventually built under this Govt it will be as a Federal public project. This Govt is effectively sneaking Nationalization through the back door, like Sask CCF Govts of the 50's and 60's.
These ideological zealots refuse to see that everything they do confirms in the Financial world's minds that there is no future in this country for mega resource projects because only an idiot would invest billions on a wish and a prayer. Actions speak louder than words, but all the world's big investors are getting is same old, same old, coming from the mouth of a new suit.
Canadians - or at least their permanent one-party government, most of the media, and broad demographics insulated from reality in various ways - have total disdain for the very concept of making the country attractive to private sector investment. Why would we want to make life easier for gross icky rich people and evil corporations?
Government is the only real, pure source of economic activity, who can employ the correct number of consultants, lawyers, academics and activists to make sure that every blade of grass is properly consulted before any project can proceed (and often during and after as well!).
Building a pipeline and collecting revenue from it could be a reasonable strategy if the government wasn't so poor at managing money. The last I heard, TMX was unlikely to make money. The genius who managed that disaster now heads up our Major Projects Office.
The funny part of that is that pipelines are wildly profitable affairs - in any other country on the planet BUT Canada.
We've completely strangled this industry with red tape.
Also, look at Canada's legalized marijuana regime (note the term "regime," not "market" or "industry") the only one in the world that loses money (or barely earns any) for its participants, except of course the federal government itself.
Massive Canadian infrastructure projects usually had a role for government, because our geography makes north-south infrastructure more economic than east-west.
Now, instead of the primary barriers to east-west infrastructure being physical and geographical, they are regulatory and self-imposed. The solution to that is not sacks of taxpayers' money.
.....well said. Carney's mistaken ideology of Dirigisme, will in the end, have Canada taxpayers pay for a hugely larger government bureaucracy, which is why this doctrine has failed in those economies that adopted this economic model, France being one such economy. Dirigisme in France from 1945 to 1975 centered on indicative planning, state-directed investment, and the creation of national champions in key industries. The state also used subsidies, credit policies, and regulation to guide industrialization and protect strategic sectors. Dirigisme failed due to the increased complexities of a highly competitive and internationalized economy, which describes todays economic picture, because of the limited strategic planning capacities of bureaucratic state technocrats. Additionally, this doctrine leads to uncompetitive enterprises and economic stagnation, seen before in the 1980s in France and the bursting of the Asian bubble economy in the late 1990s. This is where Carney is taking Canada, deeper and deeper into an expanding federal bureaucracy making all business endevours dependent on taxpayer-paid-initiatives and business beholden to a central government. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and has rolled in the Trojan Horse of this ideology into major projects in Canada, which should be funded by private enterprise, not government subsidies with tax payer monies. 🤔
This is all to appeal to the Eastern Canadian political and economic sensibilities. This is what Carney's base wants, especially the boomers. They think that with a government directed economy we will finally be able to show up the Americans AND keep the freebies flowing. It's the boomer dream.
“That is the real crisis — not the absence of capital, but the absence of conditions under which capital would willingly participate.”
Bravo. What an excellent post!!
I have nothing to add.
The various levels of Canadian government have sufficiently screwed up the regulatory approval process that private capital sees too much risk to invest in projects. That puts Canadian governments in the position of having to fund those projects in order to do it and/or demonstrate that they've sufficiently reformed the regulatory process that it can now be done. It's a disgrace to be here, but something like this is probably necessary in order to unscrew ourselves.
It also feels very Canadian in some ways, like Louis Hebert creating a farm in Quebec to show the other settlers that it could be done, or the federal government subsidizing the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Trans-Canada Pipeline.
"The funding for this pipeline seems to be all "smoke and mirrors." There are no private enterprise companies mentioned in connection with this project..... none. "... **Goes to check the press announcement**, Ah, I do seem Pembina is participating, that's a private sector company, and it is in fact involved. I saw no reason to read on more, can't imagine the rest of the rant is any better researched.
It's impolite tell someone they don't have the benefit of the doubt and Canadians are nothing if not polite.
One of Canada's cultural flaws IMHO is that we give the benefit of the doubt to those who we think have our best interests at heart. It's vestigial colonial in group thinking.
There is a reason why Alberta independence talk hasn't driven business away. (In fact investment is up in Alberta). Canada was already in a sorry state.
The pipeline deal will disappear in November. Nothing will be built. That's not what it's for.
I can't figure out why so many are still giving so much credit to the Carney Liberals for what amount to announcements.
It's like congratulating your friend's derelict kid for announcing that he's thinking about applying to law school: 'Uh, great start buddy but get back to me when you've got an admissions letter in hand or better yet when you actually get the degree, finish articling, and someone hires you as a lawyer. See you in like 5 years minimum and I'll hold off any serious praise until then, knowing you'll most likely just go back to getting baked and playing online shooter games in your parents' basement.' The Liberal government is that derelict kid.
Go on
So far, his accomplishments have focused on expanding the powers of his government. A pipeline doesn't do that, so I suspect this is another bullshit MOU.
Regina switched “Buffalo Days” for “Queen City Ex”and Edmonton changed “Klondike Days” for something pedestrian. So us Prairie Folk are not immune to Toronto like silliness.
It's not true that Toronto shuns "anything that seems old, quaint or provincial." We call it the Canadian National Exhibition.
There's lots of summer exhibitions across the country, but none of them have the same cultural footprint as the Stampede in Calgary. And that's OK - I think Matt Gurney fixates too much on the idea of One Big Festival as critical to civic culture and civil society. Toronto has dozens of festivals and celebrations drawing from different parts of the population, and that's a sign of a healthy culture. Those festivals and events are also open to *everybody*, which is a great way to share cultures and build community.
One thing that Matt and Jen didn't talk about was that the Stampede is also kind of crowds out other festivals: it's the One Big Mega Event every summer. There's other festivals too, of course, but they aren't as numerous and don't draw the crowds seen at comparable events in other cities.
The Royal Agricultural Fair fits.
Stampede and the CNE are not of the same ilk. Maybe the CNE still qualifies as an embrace of the quaint, but not full civic festival embrace.
The Canadian National Exhibition is "national" in the same way that the Superbowl winner is the "world" champion.
I grow impatient with this talk of Canada lacking its own identifiable culture that, apparently, is a sign of national failure in some way. What nonsense to suggest that Toronto try to import the Calgary Stampede. The Stampede is evidence of not only Calgary and Albert’s culture, and it should remain as such, but a huge part of Canada’s culture. No need to import it and cheapen it; all Canadian’s are welcome to participate. That is the meaning of being Canadian. We are a huge country, with diversity in cultures throughout. Surely we have moved past the heavy anchors of Upper and Lower Canada; interesting history but boring in comparison to what we now have. Give me the life and the ability to experience such a wide diversity of people and cultures without having to leave my own country. It is a marvel. Our national identity is revealed through our people. And it is dynamic, thankfully.
Do we really need another pipeline to the west coast?? Why not to the east coast and displace all that offshore crude that is coming by tanker up the St. Lawrence. Now that might even been seen as a nation building project as opposed to building one to the west coast and providing China with more oil.
Feds don't even have to fund it. Just institute an East coast tanker ban.
And treat foreign countries as badly as Alberta? Not a chance. Plus, you know, Irvings.
I'm going to hope this is a rhetorical question, because the obvious answer is "Quebec". Just overcoming previous Quebec political resistance to building pipelines is an achievement. Putting a pipeline through Quebec would be a greater political challenge of another order of magnitude.
So, if the objective is to increase shipping capacity for Alberta oil, another pipeline on the TMX route seems to be the easiest way to tick the box. Is it ideal? No. Will it get the job done? Yes. And also, it's not necessarily just shipping oil to China. I think a lot of people have missed the recent announcement that *Germany* has struck a deal for LNG exports from the West Coast: it's a heck of a detour through the Panama Canal instead of just crossing the Atlantic, but it illustrates that once you've got your product to tidewater, it becomes feasible to ship it to a lot of different markets.
They could have had that shipping by rail 7 years ago. Dilbit is not Bakken crude, so the Lac-Mégantic argument doesn't hold up. Jason Kenney killed that idea at a cost of billions in cancellation fees.
So true, so rarely mentioned. That said, most politicians can not contain themselves when it comes to seeing nothing but bad in a previous politicians decisions. In this case, Jason was a prime example.
I am not familiar with the whole 1150 Km TMX pipeline route, but having traveled the Coquihalla many times during TMX construction and after, I am familiar with the TMX route from Coquihalla Summit to West of Hope. I have also worked on routing for many smaller diameter pipelines. There will be some significant engineering challenges trying to shoehorn another pipe into the Valley that already contains the Coldwater River, a 4 Lane Highway and two large diameter pipes. The challenge is not only the limited room in the Valley, but also any construction activity cannot destabilize the Valley slopes and the integrity of the existing Pipes. Once West of Hope there is the TransCanada Highway where TMX went under the West Bound Curb Lane twice and other tight spots between Rock Faces, Hwy 1 and Fraser River. It can all be engineered and constructed, but costs will be many $$$$$$.
Then there is the Green Field pipeline route from around Sumas navigating through Surrey and Delta to Roberts Bank, roughly 80 Kms. All engineering doable, but it will take time to deal with Land Owners and assess a Green Field pipeline route for environmental and technical considerations. $$$$
And then there is the loading terminal and tank farm to be built near Roberts Bank. Another Island would need to be constructed, similar to Roberts Bank Coal Terminal, and this would be in Tsawwassen IR Territory. $$$$$
I think its apparent, the Southern Route was taken for political reasons, the tanker ban was never going to come off and the pipeline had to go South if Carney wanted Eby to not object to a West Coast Oil Pipeline. And I don't see a private company coming forward to build the pipeline until the route is defined and costs (realistic please!!!!!) are refined.
And then there will be the question of tolls. TMX is making money for shippers but a loser for TMX because they can't recover the increased cost of construction with increased tolls. With construction costs for the new TMX at least 40 Billion (vs 34 Bill for TMX), will the economics for shippers allow for payment of larger tolls for the new TMX?
On the good side, a deep water Loading Terminal at Roberts Bank would allow for larger vessels. I would think that would be a big plus for the Southern Route economics.
With backing alignment of Feds and Province ( a rarity in Canada), good things should happen. I hope this is one of those rare projects.
Couldn't the new pipeline follow at least some of the existing branch that feeds refineries just over the border in Washington?
If you are going to move across the border, just go south from Alberta, ignore the blackmail BC is charging, and once in the US then push the pipeline to the west coast.
Tell the rest of Canada that AB tried to be a good citizen but was deeply screwed over last time. Bribe us like you are BC, and we may consider it. No, I don't care if the US has control of our crude. We tried in good faith and were kick and sneered at by bad faith actors (hello Justine Trudeau).
Pay us and buff our shoes. We may re-consider. Smith it going about this all the wrong way.
The elephant in the room with this pipeline deal is Section 35 of the Constitution and the need to have unanimous consent amid dozens of indigenous bands along the route. Carney can play ball with the provinces. At the end of the day the pipeline is federal jurisdiction and he has the power to steamroll it over any provincial objections. Not so with S35 obligations. I suspect we will now see the cheque book open and "consultation" will occur. It is for these reasons that no private backer has stepped forward. Who, other than the government, would take the risk of spending billions with a high likelihood of the courts throwing it back in your face. 2nd, what private projects are still viable in this country if they need to include a payoff of these magnitudes. Until this country addresses S35, get used to governments bankrolling most major investments. I suspect Carney understands this.
Quebec's Carnival seems like it could capture more national attention, and Canadians certainly need something to celebrate in February.
The pipeline deal will disappear in November. Nothing will be built. That's not what it's fire.
Toronto = Pride. Already a great event, so make it bigger, broader and include everyone.
There are only so many people willing to walk down Yonge with their Wang hanging out...
Wish I shared your optimism about the effect of this deal on Albertans.
Alas, I predict that this development, and any other coming from Ottawa, will fail to console a people and province whose very sense of self depends on remaining unconsoled.
Eby has completely taken Carney's pants down. He knows the eco's and some indigenous groups will go to the wall to oppose any pipeline. They will do Eby's dirty work for him. He will sit back, let others try to kill this while still getting billions after billions from the fed's. I spent the last couple weeks in BC, and that's how my NDP friends there see this shaking down.
Meanwhile, Smith goes begging for a pipeline. She should have proposed building straight south into the US and then to an American export terminal. Force the fed's come to her. Instead she was like a dog that immediately rolls over and exposes their belly to the alpha in the pack. Once again, AB and AB companies will do the work while others take the gravy.
Profoundly disappointed with the pipeline deal.
This, they could have simply started building - a YEAR ago.
There was nothing really magical about the politics of it, and in terms of measuring up to the "build build build" zeitgeist of the last election, this announcement falls completely flat.
Somehow, the original TransMountain got built in just 30 months from a standing start - using 1950s technology - but the guy who was going to "build at generational speeds" needed almost 18 months of talking before he could decide on a route - which turns out to be the same route we JUST got finished building.
...and now we need ANOTHER year or more to do the environmental studies and FN consultations.
But that TransMountain corridor has been studied and "consulted" already - fully! From end to end, this is an established corridor, with two pipelines currently operating in it.
WHY do we need to start all over with all the assessments? Why is additional consultation required?
2, maybe 3, themes kept bugging me as I listened to the podcast.
The Stampede as a unifying force in Alberta. In the ancient past of my memory this was not so. For young Edmontonians Calgary was where you turned right on the way to Banff. Has so much changed that Calgary is the mecca even for the northern part of the province? Of course Edmonton envied the Stampede. Klondike Days were fun but never in the same league as a LOCAL event.
The joke about dropping Gordie Howe's name from the bridge: calculated -or just unconscious- to annoy anyone who grew up with 6 team pro hockey? Fine with the rest but leave Gordie's name in the mix!
World Cup hosting: There is no way the economic spinoffs from this come close to meeting the public costs. There may have been a bit of extra buzz in Toronto and Vancouver from having games here. But, at least in Toronto, the world cup is always a great big deal. Were more people wearing jerseys or filling the sports bars than in 2022? I'm sure it was great for our team to play at home in front of supporters.