I don't really understand the national energy corridor concept. It isn't like the feds could designate land where all the rules around consultation and environmental assessments don't apply. The establishment of a corridor itself would be subject to so many lawsuits. It is something that sounds like a good idea until you actually think about it, sorta like Energy East. By chance, this idea was proposed by the Wildrose way back when, and now a few former Wildrose staffers are working for Scheer, and this concept pops up again.
Also, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is no reason to do an Energy East 2.0. It would be an expensive, inefficient, wasteful project that would make Alberta poorer. The entire project doesn't exist as anything other than a point of rhetoric at this point. Also: it would be even more expensive than the massively over projections before a shovel was in the ground Energy East 1.0 was turning into, because there is no longer an underused natural gas line to convert.
As for the greens, I don't think they really understand what it means when they propose what they do. In any case for Alberta, the most natural result of a domestic oil only policy would be Canada consuming expensive Newfoundland offshore Brent which is currently being exported, replacing cheaper American imports, while maybe increasing synthetic sweet by rail east bound.
The Greens want Canada's GHG emissions to drop by 60% by 2030. That doesn't jive with anything like an Energy East 2.0, building new refineries, or expanding at all.