Saskatchewan premier pitches ‘port-to-port corridor' for energy and other exports
CALGARY - Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe is pitching the idea of a 'port-to-port corridor' that would connect energy and other goods to Canada's northern Pacific and Arctic coasts.
Moe made his remarks Monday alongside Alberta Premier Danielle Smith at an event focused on both provinces' ambitions to double oil and gas production.
'I know we are not going to be entirely reliant on the U.S for that marketplace,' Moe said. 'We are going to have access to the world.'
Moe, who leads the right-of-centre Saskatchewan Party government, said he likes what he's been hearing out of the Liberal federal government about making Canada an 'energy superpower' and the strongest economy in the G7.
He admits that means going against his political stripe to some degree.
'Far be it for me to be accused of being chair of the Liberal booster club the last decade or so, but there are some comments from this Prime Minister that I think we can truly get behind,' Moe told the event hosted by energy services industry advocacy group Enserva.
Prime Minister Mark Carney's government has introduced legislation that would fast track certain infrastructure projects deemed in the 'national interest' as U.S. President Donald Trump upends what until recently has been a reliable cross-border trading relationship.
Carney has heard pitches from the premiers about what projects they think should be chosen, but has not said which have made the cut.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants a bitumen pipeline to be the 'anchor tenant' of a corridor to the Port of Prince Rupert, B.C., enabling exports to Asia above and beyond what the operating Trans Mountain pipeline can ship from the Vancouver area.
She has said that project should be built in tandem with another one she'd like to see considered in the national interest: the Pathways proposal to capture and sequester carbon emissions from Alberta's biggest oilsands producers.
Smith and Moe also voiced support for a pipeline to the Port of Churchill, Man., which would enable exports to Europe via Hudson Bay. Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has been keen on the idea, too.
'One thing the prime minister seems to want is a project and a proponent,' Smith said.
'So we are working to get a proponent or a consortium to put a project on the table, and then we're going to test out this two year timeline that he has.'
Smith said Carney has asked conservative premiers to reach out to people they know in the federal Conservatives to help the Liberals' project approval bill pass in the minority Parliament.
Despite being encouraged by the new tone in Ottawa, Smith and Moe said they both want the repeal of numerous federal environmental policies that they say have stymied resource investment.
'Policies do matter and we need a significant policy shift and we need it very quickly,' Moe said.
The event coincided with the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta., where leaders from the United States, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy, as well as the European Union, are meeting.
The confab of world leaders puts Alberta on the map at a time when the approach to energy security is being 'recalibrated,' Smith said.
'I know that, especially with the world turmoil, the energy security needs of our international partners has never been more important. And I think this really does drive a focus about how Alberta can be the solution.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'
WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues on Friday in a scathing dissent on a case involving vehicle emissions regulations. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations. She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests." With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote. The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added. The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said. "Also, I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she added. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process. Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading. Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others." Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue. The bottom line, he added, is that the government "may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders." Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law whose scholarship pushes back on Jackson's theory, said it was notable that no other justices, including her two fellow liberals, signed on to her dissent. "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests," he said in an interview with NBC News. "It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Adler, who Jackson cited in her dissent, said it can be "very simplistic" to classify cases as pro-business or anti-business simply because there can often be wealthy interests on both sides. The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act. In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver. The Republican-controlled Congress voted earlier this month to revoke that waiver. This article was originally published on
Miami Herald
13 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Michael Hiltzik: Social Security is still in good shape but faces challenges
The annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees provide yearly opportunities for misunderstandings by politicians, the media, and the general public about the health of these programs. This year is no exception. A case in point is the response by House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, to the Social Security and Medicare trustees' projections about the depletion of the programs' reserves: "Doing nothing to address the solvency of these programs will result in an immediate, automatic, and catastrophic cut to benefits for the nearly 70 million seniors who rely on them." The reports say nothing about an "immediate" cut to benefits. They talk about cuts that might happen in 2034 and 2033, when there still would be enough money coming in to pay 89% of scheduled Medicare benefits and 81% of scheduled Social Security benefits. House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith, R-Missouri, used the release of the reports to plump for the budget resolution that the House narrowly passed on orders from President Trump and that is currently being masticated by several Senate committees. The reports, Smith said, make clear "how much we need pro-growth tax and economic policies that unleash our nation's growth, increase wages, and create new jobs." The budget bill "would do just that," he said. Neither Arrington nor Smith mentioned the leading threats to the programs coming from the White House. In Social Security's case, that's Trump's immigration, taxation and tariff policies, which work directly against the program's solvency. For Medicare, the major threat is a rise in healthcare costs. But those have flattened out as a percentage of gross domestic product since 2010, when the enactment of the Affordable Care Act brought better access to medical care to millions of Americans. That trend is jeopardized by Republican healthcare proposals, which encompass throwing millions of Americans off Medicaid. Policy proposals by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. such as discouraging vaccinations can only drive healthcare costs higher. Let's take a closer look. (The Social Security trustees are Kennedy, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer and newly confirmed Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, all of whom serve ex officio; two seats for public trustees are vacant. The Medicare trustees are the same, plus Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.) The trust funds are built up from payroll taxes paid by workers and employers, along with interest paid on the treasury bonds the programs hold. At the end of this year, the Medicare trust fund will hold about $245 billion, and the Social Security fund - actually two funds, consisting of reserves for the old-age and disability programs, but typically considered as one - more than $2.3 trillion. Trump has consistently promised that he won't touch Social Security and Medicare, but actions speak louder than words. "Trump's tariffs and mass deportation program will accelerate the depletion of the trust fund," Kathleen Romig of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities observed after the release of the trustees' reports this week. "The Trump administration's actions are weakening the country's economic outlook and Social Security's financial footing." Immigration benefits the program in several ways. Because "benefits paid out today are funded from payroll taxes collected from today's workers," notes CBPP's Kiran Rachamallu, "more workers paying into the system benefits the program's finances." In the U.S., he writes, "immigrants are more likely to be of working age and have higher rates of labor force participation, compared to U.S.-born individuals." The Social Security trustees' fiscal projections are based on average net immigration of about 1.2 million people per year. Higher immigration will help build the trust fund balances, and immigration lower than that will "increase the funding shortfall." All told, "the Trump administration's plans to drastically cut immigration and increase deportations would significantly worsen Social Security's financial outlook." A less uplifting aspect of immigration involves undocumented workers. To get jobs, they often submit false Social Security numbers to employers - so payroll taxes are deducted from their paychecks, but they're unlikely ever to be able to collect benefits. In 2022, Rachamallu noted, undocumented workers paid about $25.7 billion in Social Security taxes. Trump's tariffs, meanwhile, could affect Social Security by generating inflation and slowing the economy. Higher inflation means larger annual cost-of-living increases on benefits, raising the program's costs. If they provoke a recession, that would weigh further on Social Security's fiscal condition. Trump also has talked about eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits. But since at least half of those tax revenues flow directly into Social Security's reserves, they would need to be replaced somehow. Trump has never stated where the substitute revenues could be found. Major news organizations tend to focus on the depletion date of the trust funds without delving too deeply into their significance or, more important, their cause. It's not unusual for otherwise responsible news organizations to parrot right-wing tropes about Social Security running out of money or "going broke" in the near future, which is untrue but can unnecessarily unnerve workers and retirees. The question raised but largely unaddressed by the trustee reports is how to reduce the shortfall. The Republican answer generally involves cutting benefits, either by outright reductions or such options as raising the full retirement age, which is currently set between 66 and 67 for those born in 1952-1959 and 67 for everyone born in 1960 or later. As I've reported, raising the retirement age is a benefit cut by another name. It's also discriminatory, for average life expectancy is lower for some racial and ethnic groups than for others. For all Americans, average life expectancy at age 65 has risen since the 1930s by about 6.6 years, to about 84 and a half. The increase has been about the same for white workers. But for Black people in general, the gain is just over five years, to an average of a bit over 83, and for Black men it's less than four years and two months, to an average of about 81 and four months. Life expectancy is also related to income: Better-paid workers have longer average lifespans than lower-income workers. The other option, obviously, is to leave benefits alone but increase the programs' revenues. This is almost invariably dismissed by the GOP, but its power is compelling. The revenue shortfall experienced by Social Security is almost entirely the product of rising economic inequality in the U.S. At Social Security's inception, the payroll tax was set at a rate that would cover about 92% of taxable wage earnings. Today, rising income among the rich has reduced that ratio to only about 82%. That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues. The payroll tax is highly regressive. Those earning up to $176,100 this year pay the full tax of 12.4% on wage earnings (half deducted directly from their paychecks and half paid by their employers). Those earning more than that sum in wages pay nothing on the excess. To put it in perspective, the payroll tax bite on someone earning $500,000 in wages this year would pay not 12.4% in payroll tax (counting both halves of the levy), but about 4.4%. Eliminating the cap on wages, according to the Social Security actuaries, would eliminate half to three-quarters of the expected shortfall in revenues over the next 75 years, depending on whether benefits were raised for the highest earners. Taxing investment income - the source of at least half the income collected by the wealthiest Americans - at the 12.4% level rather than leaving it entirely untaxed for Social Security would reduce the shortfall by an additional 38%. Combining these two options would eliminate the entire shortfall. Social Security has already been hobbled by the Trump administration, Trump's promises notwithstanding. Elon Musk's DOGE vandals ran roughshod through the program, cutting staff and closing field offices, and generally instilling fears among workers and retirees that the program might not be around long enough to serve them. In moral terms, that's a crime. Those are the choices facing America: Cutting benefits is a dagger pointed directly at the neediest Americans. Social Security benefits account for 50% or more of the income nearly 42% of all beneficiaries, and 90% or more of the income of nearly 15% of beneficiaries. The wealthiest Americans, on the other hand, have been coasting along without paying their fair share of the program. Could the equities be any clearer than that? Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The reason Trump is spending as little time as possible at the Nato summit
Donald Trump will spend as little time as possible on European soil next week when he heads to a crucial Nato summit for just 24 hours. He was set to arrive in The Hague on Monday evening before returning to Washington on Wednesday, but the White House says he will now arrive on Tuesday. A week after he left a meeting of the G7 in Canada early, apparently irritated at having to sit through a meeting on wildfires when his mind was on the Middle East, it will raise fears among allies that he has no time for the sorts of summits that underpin international diplomacy. Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, said the shortened trip was not a snub, but a reflection of how Nato has tightened the schedule. 'The president is a man of efficiency. He wants to get things done,' she said. 'More action, less talk.' Mr Trump has expressed his irritation with Nato in the past, even threatening to withdraw the US in protest at the way allies were shirking spending targets. But relations have improved in recent years as member states have accepted Mr Trump's arguments. His new schedule means he will still arrive in time for a leaders' dinner and will attend a session devoted to discussing allies' efforts to spend the equivalent of five percent of their gross domestic product on defence. 'He wants to see that happen,' said Ms Leavitt. At the same time, the tight turnaround reflects Mr Trump's impatience with big, multilateral groups. The president upended this week's G7 summit in Kananaski, Canada, hurrying home on Monday night to deal with the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. He had hinted at his frustration as he addressed the media beside Sir Keir Starmer during the afternoon. He was asked about the chances of reaching a deal with Iran and said: 'As soon as we leave here we are going to do something. But I have to leave here. I have, you know, this commitment. I have a lot of commitments.' With the Middle East in flames, he then had to sit through a session on tackling wildfires. A former White House official said: 'He already thinks these meetings are a waste of time. I think you can see the timeline of a wildfire meeting followed by the announcement that he was leaving and draw your own conclusions.' Nato had already accounted for Mr Trump's mercurial nature, condensing its format from three sessions to a single two-and-a-half-hour meeting. Ms Leavitt said the president's travel plans simply reflected that shift. 'Nato has shortened its schedule,' she said. 'The president is rolling with the schedule that Nato has given us.' Organisers have shortened the summit and drafted an abbreviated joint statement in part to avoid a repeat of Mr Trump's last Nato meeting. In 2019, he left early, abandoning a planned press conference after other leaders were caught on camera joking about him. Brett Bruen, a former Obama official and president of the Global Situation Room, said the shortened trips were 'becoming a pattern.' 'He may not want to sit through a session on wildfires but it is the prerogative of the host of any of these summits to decide the agenda,' he said. More to the point, side meetings and other interactions were the place where a lot of business got done. He said: 'If we are no longer to use summits for substance then I think it begs the question: Where else are leaders getting together?' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
