OPINION: The Carney/Smith MOU: Who Really Won?

OPINION: The Carney/Smith MOU: Who Really Won? What It Means, and Why Alberta Should Stay Cautiously Skeptical

by David Craig

Instead of automatically taking a pre-determined side based on whether we want Alberta to separate or not, let’s try to look at this MOU with a hint of pragmatism. We as Canadians, Albertans, etc., continue to fragment when we are too tribalistic. Tribalism feels righteous, but its self-sabotage. A fragmented conservative movement can’t defend Canada’s future.

But enough of that…

Let’s get straight to the point everyone keeps dancing around, who got the better deal in this new Carney–Smith energy MOU?

I think it’s important to state that this MOU does not further the cause of Alberta Independence nor does it bolster the thought of Alberta staying in Canada…for now.

People online are acting like it’s either the greatest victory in Alberta’s history or the biggest act of political betrayal since the NEP. And as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. This agreement is not the salvation some are claiming, but it’s also not the sellout others are screaming about.

It’s a political pressure valve. One that gives both leaders something to brag about while leaving Alberta with a whole lot of “maybe.”

So let’s break this down in plain English.

Who Got the Better Deal?

Short answer: PM Carney got the better position. Smith got better talking points. Alberta got potential…if the stars align.

Let’s start with PM Carney. Strategically, he walked away with exactly what Ottawa always wanted but can never publicly impose:

• Alberta locked into a Net Zero framework
• Carbon pricing staying put
• A national “collaboration” narrative
• Indigenous equity becoming a built-in requirement
• A calmer investor climate
• Divided Conservatives (mission accomplished)
• And a photo-op of a “unified Canada” magically reappearing under his leadership

PM Carney didn’t need to force an emissions cap as stated by Martin Pelletier. He achieved the same effect through structure, timelines, and framing. It’s extremely clever politics. He re-centred Ottawa without looking heavy-handed. And he put all the pressure for early action on Alberta, not the feds.

Now, on Premier Smith’s side: she got things no Alberta premier has extracted from Ottawa in two decades.

• The Clean Electricity Regulations are suspended in Alberta
• The Oil & Gas Emissions Cap is officially dead
• A new pipeline to Asia is back on the table
• TMX expansion talk reopened
• Pathways CCUS embraced
• Nuclear is finally in play
• Ottawa publicly admits Alberta is foundational to Canada’s economic future

Those are real concessions. They aren’t nothing. Smith went into the lion’s den and walked away with a list of federal commitments the Trudeau government refused to even entertain. We must give her a lot of credit for fighting hard for Alberta. You may already believe it’s in vain, but its commendable to keep fighting even when the outlook is grim.

But (and it’s a big BUT) everything Premier Smith “won” is conditional, non-binding, dependent on multiple governments, reliant on courts, and requires private investors who’ve been burned before. The Calgary Flames might have a better chance at winning the Stanley Cup this year than Alberta seeing the fruit of this labor.

If these things happen, Smith will be remembered as the premier who forced Ottawa to face reality. If they don’t, she’ll be told she got played.

So, who won?

Carney won structurally. Smith won optically.

Alberta wins only if real projects break ground.

Will This Fuel or Reduce Separation Sentiment?

This is where things get interesting.

In the short term, I think the separation temperature drops a bit. Small “c” conservatives, centrists, moderates, etc. will see headlines about pipelines and cooperation and things “moving again.” After eight years of federal hostility, that alone feels like relief.

But the medium term is where the risk skyrockets.

If this pipeline stalls (through BC, courts, activists, Indigenous disagreements, capital flight, or a new federal government backing away) Alberta’s anger will be nuclear. Not “online angry.” I mean real, political, measurable, poll-moving anger.

Because Albertans will say:

“We gave Canada one more chance. And it failed again.”

That becomes the turning point.

That’s when the separation movement stops being the fringe and becomes the mainstream.

And long term? Regardless of how this MOU plays out, the Alberta-first mindset is growing. Even moderates are saying some version of:

“We need more autonomy, so we’re not constantly whiplashed by Ottawa.”

This deal buys peace… temporarily.

But if it collapses, it will fuel the strongest independence wave Alberta has ever seen.

Mark my words.

The Pros vs. the Cons: What Supporters and Critics Are Really Saying

Now let’s compare the two dominant narratives. The “this is a huge win” crowd and the “this is a complete sellout” crowd.

THE PROS (What supporters see)

Emissions Cap is dead.

• This was the number one existential threat to Alberta’s upstream growth. Gone.

Clean Electricity Regulations suspended in Alberta.

• This is massive. It opens the door for AI data centres, baseload gas, and nuclear. Investors needed this.

A 1-million-barrel-per-day pipeline to Asia is explicitly acknowledged.

• It’s not approval, but it’s the first time a PM has said this out loud in decades.

TMX expansion talk is back.

• Supporters frame this as “green-lit expansion.” It isn’t, but it’s certainly not dead.

Indigenous equity financing from Ottawa.

• This is something industry desperately wanted. It enables Indigenous partnerships that were previously impossible.

Pathways CCUS embraced federally and provincially.

• A unified regulatory path for the single biggest decarbonization project in Canada.

Carbon pricing stays under Alberta’s TIER system, not Ottawa’s.

• Industry asked for exactly this.

Hard timelines for approval (2 years instead of a decade).

• This is genuinely huge IF ITS REAL.

In the eyes of pro-deal voices, this is everything Alberta asked for.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

THE CONS (What critics are warning about)

Nothing in this MOU is binding. Nothing.

• Carney can walk away. BC can block. Courts can kill. Investors can ghost.

BC still effectively has veto power.

• Despite the spin, Indigenous land, environmental review, marine safety, and provincial jurisdictions remain obstacles.

Alberta must act first, federal deliverables come later (maybe).

• Alberta must deliver on CCUS, carbon pricing, emissions intensity, nuclear planning, Indigenous equity, and methane targets before Ottawa lifts a finger.

Alberta is now locked into Net Zero to 2050.

• This is Carney’s holy grail. Critics argue it’s a globalist framework that limits growth and imposes costly obligations.

Private capital may not fund a mega-pipeline anyway.

• If the economics don’t work, the project dies regardless of political agreements.

The timing is convenient.

• Signing a “collaboration deal” right before a UCP AGM with rising grassroots frustration is raising eyebrows.

The independence crowd believes this proves Alberta still needs Ottawa’s permission.

• They say it exposes the weakness of federalism, not the strength of cooperation.

Here’s what I think. Alberta didn’t get played, but Alberta also didn’t win. Not yet.

This is an opportunity. A possibility. A roadmap.

And like every roadmap in this country, it runs directly into:

• BC politics
• federal politics
• Indigenous politics
• environmental politics
• global capital

If the stars align, this could be the beginning of a true Western energy resurgence. If they don’t, this MOU will end up in the same pile where Energy East, Northern Gateway, TransCanada’s corridor, and every other “national unity project” went to die.

It’s fine to be cautiously optimistic, but it’s just as important to stay skeptical.

For Albertans who are done with Canada, why can’t we prepare both paths at once? Why can’t Alberta leverage the option of leaving while also giving Ottawa a chance to deliver on the MOU? We don’t need to fragment, we need to be strategic.

As The Beatles sung, “Come together, right now..”

Last words, I promise. In Canada, nothing is real until the dirt is moving and the pipes are going in the ground.

And today?

We’ve got words.

Tomorrow, we’ll see if they mean anything.