Alberta
Defending Provincial Priorities
News release from Free Alberta Strategy
The recent debate around zoning across the province is a prime example of federal encroachment.
The federal government offered money to cities to help with housing affordability challenges, but only made the money available if cities promised to change zoning policies.
As you are aware, The Free Alberta Strategy was built on the concept that the federal government needs to keep out of provincial jurisdiction.
For years, Ottawa has been watering down the constitutional delineation of duties between the federal government and the provincial government.
Bill 18 – the Provincial Priorities Act – is anticipated to pass in the Alberta Legislature this week, and represents a huge step in the direction of greater provincial jurisdictional autonomy.
The Provincial Priorities Act has been dubbed the “Keep Out of Our Backyard” law by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.
Under the Provincial Priorities Act, any agreements between the federal government and any provincial entities – including municipalities – must receive provincial approval to be considered valid.
Agreements between the federal government and provincial entities lacking Alberta’s endorsement will be deemed illegal under this legislation.
When the legislation was announced, Smith was not mincing words:
“It is not unreasonable for Alberta to demand fairness from Ottawa. They have shown time and again that they will put ideology before practicality, which hurts Alberta families and our economy. We are not going to apologize for continuing to stand up for Albertans so we get the best deal possible.
“Since Ottawa refuses to acknowledge the negative impacts of its overreach, even after losing battles at the Federal and Supreme Courts, we are putting in additional measures to protect our provincial jurisdiction to ensure our province receives our fair share of federal tax dollars and that those dollars are spent on the priorities of Albertans.”
Although the federal government has limited direct authority in provincial jurisdiction, it can leverage its substantial financial resources to prompt or pressure provincial governments into specific actions.
The recent debate around zoning across the province is a prime example of federal encroachment.
The federal government offered money to cities to help with housing affordability challenges, but only made the money available if cities promised to change zoning policies.
Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek tried to claim that the federal housing funds were not contingent on the city’s rezoning efforts, but federal Housing Minister Sean Fraser posted a pretty strong response on social media platform X (formerly Twitter):
“If Calgary, or any other city, does not meet the conditions they have agreed to, we will withhold funding under the agreement.”
The federal government played the same trick in many other provinces, too.
But, notably, in Quebec, the federal government just gave the Quebec government the cash and let them distribute it to their municipalities without conditions.
It’s tempting to think this is just more federal bias towards Quebec.
But, actually, this is a great example of how pushing back can have results.
You see, the Provincial Priorities Act in Alberta is modeled after existing legislation in Quebec, known as “An Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif,” which prohibits any municipal body from negotiating or entering into agreements with the federal government or its agencies without explicit authorization from the Quebec government.
If Ottawa wants to meddle in Quebec’s jurisdiction, it must first seek Quebec’s approval.
And it works – the federal government got back in line.
Now, with the Provincial Priorities Act, if Ottawa wants to meddle in Alberta’s jurisdiction, it must first seek Alberta’s approval.
It’s time for Ottawa to recognize Alberta’s autonomy and respect our right to determine our own future.
At the Free Alberta Strategy, we understand that constant vigilance is necessary – every time we establish a boundary, the federal government tries to circumvent it.
We will continue to inform you about what’s happening in Alberta and fight to keep Ottawa out.
But we need your support.
With your help, we can continue our work to defend Alberta’s sovereignty and serve the best interests of all Albertans.
Enough is enough – we will not stand by while our interests are disregarded.
If you are in a financial position to contribute to our work, please donate!
Alberta
Carney’s pipeline deal hits a wall in B.C.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
Carney’s attempt to ease Canada’s dependence on the U.S. stirs a backlash in B.C., raises Indigenous concerns and rattles his own party
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has opened a political hornet’s nest, exposing deep divisions within the Liberal Party and forcing a national debate that has been avoided for years.
Carney was under mounting pressure to respond to U.S. tariffs that threaten to carve billions out of Canada’s economy. The United States buys more than 95 per cent of Canada’s oil exports, leaving the country highly exposed to U.S. policy decisions. That pressure is now driving his push for a route to the Pacific, a project that could change Canada’s economic future but also destabilize his already fragile minority government.
Carney knows the political risk. His government could fall at any time, which only raises the stakes. Even so, he has pressed ahead. The agreement with Alberta lays early groundwork for a new pipeline to the Pacific. It would expand the oil sands, ease some environmental obligations and revive a proposal industry leaders have pushed for years.
The route is far from settled, but it is expected to run to B.C.’s northern coast and open access to Asian buyers. A Pacific route would finally give Canada a direct path into Asian energy markets, where demand remains strong and prices are often higher than in the United States.
If Carney expected broad support, he did not get it, especially in British Columbia. Because B.C. is the only province with a deep-water port capable of handling large crude carriers, it is the only path a west-coast pipeline can take. The province is now the central battleground, and whether the project succeeds will depend on what happens there.
B.C. Premier David Eby criticized the lack of consultation. “It would have been good for B.C. to be at the table,” he said, warning that the project risks undermining Indigenous support for the province’s liquefied natural gas plans. He also noted that the pipeline has no private backer and no commitments from First Nations, two obstacles that have tripped up projects before.
The backlash quickly spread to Ottawa. Steven Guilbeault, the former environment minister and the most prominent environmentalist ever to serve in a federal cabinet, resigned from cabinet in direct response to the MOU. He said the proposed pipeline “would have major environmental impacts”. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said his departure “dashes the last hope that Mark Carney is going to have a good climate record ever.”
Several B.C. Liberal MPs echoed concerns about the political cost. CBC News reported anger inside the caucus, with some MPs “seething” over the agreement and worried about losing climate-focused voters.
The voters those MPs fear may not be as opposed as they think. An October Angus Reid Institute survey found that a solid majority of Canadians support a pipeline from northern Alberta to the northwest B.C. coast. In British Columbia, support outweighs opposition by a wide margin. That challenges Eby’s claim that the project lacks public backing. Carney may have more room to manoeuvre than his critics admit.
The most significant challenge, however, comes from Indigenous leaders. British Columbia is the only province that has formally adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law, giving First Nations a stronger legal position in major project decisions. Court rulings over the past two decades have affirmed a duty to consult and, in some cases, accommodate Indigenous communities, giving them major influence over large projects.
A group representing Coastal First Nations in B.C. said the pipeline “will never happen”. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs said it is “loudly objecting” to the MOU, arguing it was drafted without involvement from coastal First Nations and does not meet consultation standards outlined in UNDRIP. “The answer is still no and always will be,” said UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. He also said lifting the crude oil tanker ban would amount to bulldozing First Nation rights. Without Indigenous consent, the project cannot proceed, and Carney knows this is the single largest barrier he faces.
Carney’s reasoning is straightforward. The long-term danger of relying on one market outweighs the short-term turbulence created by the pipeline fight. The MOU suggests Ottawa is prepared to reconsider projects once thought politically impossible in order to protect Canada’s economic future. He is betting that doing nothing is the bigger risk.
Whether this pipeline moves forward is uncertain, and the obstacles are real. One fact, however, remains clear. Canada cannot keep betting its stability on a single market.
Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Alberta
This new Canada–Alberta pipeline agreement will cost you more than you think

Canada and Alberta’s new net-zero energy deal is being promoted as progress, but it also brings rising costs. In this video, I break down the increase to Alberta’s industrial carbon price, how those costs can raise fuel, heating, and grocery prices, and why taxpayer-funded carbon-capture projects and potential pipeline delays could add even more. Here’s what this agreement could mean for Canadians.
Watch Nataliya Bankert’s latest video.
-
Alberta2 days agoEmissions Reduction Alberta offering financial boost for the next transformative drilling idea
-
Business1 day agoRecent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
-
armed forces2 days agoGlobal Military Industrial Complex Has Never Had It So Good, New Report Finds
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
-
Alberta24 hours agoAlberta will defend law-abiding gun owners who defend themselves
-
Business1 day agoOttawa’s gun ‘buyback’ program will cost billions—and for no good reason
-
Business1 day agoCanada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoThe Emptiness Inside: Why Large Language Models Can’t Think – and Never Will



