Premier Smith is incredibly disingenuous. Little of what she said bears scrutiny. The similarities between her playbook, Trumps, Poilievre's, Orban's, Johnson's, and various other similarly positioned South American nativist conservatives is plain.
For example:
She complains that Alberta is being disproportionately targeted to take a hit in response to Trumps economic adventurism, while presumably being content with the gutting of Ontario and Quebec's manufacturing sector by Mr. Harper, in order to make Alberta resources more attractive. It cost millions of jobs in central Canada, and lost our self-sufficiency across industries.
Even before Trump was elected, she was unilaterally negotiating with him on behalf of Canada on Twitter, and continues to, despite negotiations not even having commenced between the appropriate levels of government.
She's determined that the issues are "the border and Arctic defense", but again, negotiations have not commenced between the appropriate levels of government, so her opinion is moot. It's also simplistic, negating the comparatively trivial degree of Canadian border issues, and that the "defense budget" is really about being held hostage to American defense purchases, and American foreign adventurism. If you buy 'em, you have to use 'em, and if you do, you have to keep on buying. This is simply a method for vassal states to keep paying tribute to the empire, and all that implies.
Ms. Smith blames everyone else for "creating divisions", but that's been her modus operandi 24/7 since taking office, constructing a false narrative of long standing Albertan victimization by central Canadian elites.
Lastly, the premier positions "Northern Gateway" and "Energy East" pipeline projects as being the "simple solution" for Canadian energy self-sufficiency, that are somehow being arbitrarily blocked by the feds. Lets remember however that Alberta has long ago taken off the table a national energy strategy, so this is already a non-starter. Add to that the fact that there are no commercial interests willing to fund these projects - because they can do their business more cheaply by other means - and all you have is an "Avro Arrow" type whimsy, rather than a proper business argument. "Well, that's because of costly over-regulation" she would claim, as if 19th century robber-baron-style practices were still desirable, that, in this case, would offload all risk onto those communities and land owners through which the infrastructure forces it's way, without compensation. If TransMountain is anything to go by, the "Energy East" pipeline would cost more than $100 billion and take 15 years to build. There will never be business case for that, particularly with the anticipated decreasing demand for crude. She knows this, so is presumably counting on another bail-out from ROW to pay for it, using the same acumen that guided Alberta to pay a billion dollars for no Keystone pipeline.
Premier Smith is wonderfully articulate, but her messaging woefully superficial and misleading. I'm remined of the former Governor of Alaska - overly confident, but full of shit.
I don’t think the Team Canada thing was ever very genuine, but Smiths boarder security comments are telling. This is what boot licking sounds like. “anticipatory obedience is political tragedy”- Timothy Snyder.
Smith was and still is being vilified by certain members of Laurentian Triangle. More sane people are coming to her defence.
A murder of Canadian past decisions crows are crowding the hydro lines these days. And we have a government treading water, a party doing everything except the right thing to save its skin, all the while a plethora of the sharks circling the carcass.
I've seen Danielle Smith described as a firecracker by no less that Kevin O'Leary...and this is the best interview I have heard with her that wasn't from a newscast and the time restraints of their newscasts. She is fabulous. Please more...and I would love to hear what Scott Moe from Saskatchewan has to say. I believe he really gets under Trudeau's skin and anyone that can elicit that response from that goof if someone I can respect.
Thanks Paul for interviewing the premier. A couple of observations. I believe she said that the reason she wouldn't sign the document is the leaks or noise from certain people. Not anything to do with the document itself. If that's the case, that's odd to me. If you had agreed with the document and the discussion, you would sign on to that approach, and then take on anyone who was throwing in things that were not part of that agreement.
My second observation is that Ms Smith uses the word energy, but only defines that narrowly as oil and gas. Her government has actively restricted other forms of energy. That leads me to believe this approach is about an industry, not a province or a country.
I did listen to the Tombe interview with Herle. His points included provinces and premiers giving up a lot of autonomy to reduce economic barriers inside the country, as well as less government intervention. Which Ms Smith partly picked up on. But while she remains critical of the federal government for their interventions, she didn't speak the same way about her own.
As an Albertan, I don't share the viewpoint of grievances about Central Canada. Odd that she forgot to mention Trans Mountain when she was listing projects.
First, as I heard her in this interview and have heard her in other fora, she was happy about much of the content that the others signed off on. What caused her pause was that she had heard the chatter of the insiders to the effect that they were eager to use energy as a weapon so she wanted it very clear in the document that that would not occur. The flat refusal to make clear that there would be no use of an energy weapon and the chatter from the "usual suspects" made her say no.
As for your second observation, I intuit that you are speaking about the pause on renewable projects. Before the pause, any renewable project could be built just about anywhere by anyone who had the bucks. After the pause, there are certain areas that are protected from renewable project construction and there are certain new requirements (such as the requirement that arable land still be able to be used for agriculture so, perhaps, making it possible for cattle to graze on the land, etc.). My point is that the previous arrangement was described as a "wild west" in terms of no regulation whereas there is now appropriate regulation.
As for the Trans Mountain expansion, that was a project that the feds held up mercilessly, adding all sorts of new and (not at all) wonderful requirements so that the original proponents finally said enough and left. The feds realized that they had vastly overplayed their hand and were worried about the death of the project so they bought it. The vastly, vastly overpaid and their foolish additional requirements, etc. made the process far longer and just incredibly costly.
Truly, only a government with an unlimited treasury could have built it. So, yes it is built but our Alberta industry is paying for the immense cost due to incredibly high pipeline tolls based on too high cost to build. Yes, the feds bought it and built it but the feds essentially forced the proponents out of Canada and incompetently oversaw the construction. So, applause but limited applause.
Thank you, Ken, for setting out the reason Canada bought Trans Mountain. They thoroughly messed up the deal. I’m weary of hearing central Canada crowing about their generosity to have built a pipeline. If they had kept their sanctimonious fingers out of it, it would have been built with private funds for incredibly less money. So, no applause from me.
Premiers are under pressure to show their constituents that they are on the job. That is, they are protecting the interests of the residents in their province; otherwise, why have political provinces? I daresay if it weren't for the current chaos in Ottawa, premiers would undoubtedly not find it necessary to step out on their own.
Many thanks Ken. As an Albertan consumer I can think of many benefits I derive from being part of a country that has signed trade agreements. Some of these agreements had a range of economic consequences for different regions of the country. And certainly the impacts were higher in areas of the country that had more manufacturing than we do in Alberta.
As for the pipeline projects, I do understand the frustration about why some didn't go forward. There certainly are many things that the federal governments can look back on and try to improve. I also feel that the Alberta government and the industry involved could take some lessons, about getting partners onside and consultation. That's why I look at projects like the data centre near GP that Ms Smith touts, but it seems that the local nations were nit consulted prior to the ringing endorsement. That makes me wonder if there is a stubbornness to the approach. Obviously it's early days yet on that proposal.
My point is not that we in Alberta have no complaints that are valid. My point is that our benefits that we have accrued sometimes get taken for granted.
"As for the Trans Mountain expansion, that was a project that the feds held up mercilessly, adding all sorts of new and (not at all) wonderful requirements so that the original proponents finally said enough and left. The feds realized that they had vastly overplayed their hand and were worried about the death of the project so they bought it. The vastly, vastly overpaid and their foolish additional requirements, etc. made the process far longer and just incredibly costly."
???
After John Horgan and the BC NDP narrowly defeated Christy Clark in the 2017 provincial election, the BC NDP tried to obstruct TMX, giving Kinder Morgan cold feet. That's why Trudeau used the biggest hammer available and bought the project outright, making it an unblockable federal project. It's now up and running, in the nick of time. https://russilwvong.com/blog/alberta-and-national-unity/
Are you thinking of Energy East?
Edit: I get Danielle Smith's point. Polls showed that a majority of BCers supported TMX all the way through, but there was a pretty large minority who wanted to stop it. Trudeau burned a lot of political capital in BC to get TMX built, both approving it in the first place and then buying it.
Russil, I am thinking of TMX, certainly. Yes, Horgan tried to stop it but he was inspired by / followed the lead of / was surpassed by the Face Painter.
I am thinking of Energy East. Both the Quebec and federal governments changed the rules and put up so many more, so many additional obstacles that the cost to get through those obstacles became so onerous that TransCanada, the proponent, simply said it was uneconomic - because of those obstacles - and walked away. Oh, pretty much what Kinder Morgan did with TMX.
I am thinking of Northern Gateway where an approved project was just summarily shut down by the Face Painter.
I am thinking of the tanker ban.
I am thinking of KXL where the Face Painter did not even protest when Biden cancelled a previously issued permit to construct.
I am thinking of the No More Pipelines bill.
I am thinking of the statement that the Face Painter would like to shut down all oilsands plants.
I am thinking that Alberta sends in taxes tens of billions of dollars a year to the feds more than it receives and that money is used to allow the feds to wage economic warfare on us - see above.
I am thinking that Alberta sends so much more money to the feds than we receive and one province in particular demands that much and more and then calls our oil "dirty" and vows that pipelines will never cross their territory and the feds - who have the legal responsibility in that case - never, ever, ever speak up for us.
I am thinking that Quebec could easily become far wealthier but it has cancelled all permits to explore for energy - that is considered by experts to be prolific - so they can be "pure" - and keep receiving equalization as a have not province rather than allowing exploration of the area and becoming a have province. That is, they want our money from resources but they don't want resources there.
I am thinking that we have just a whole lot of renewable energy, wind and solar, among the most in Canada, but when we pause the development so that we can make the policy more coherent and better for the population of the province on a long term basis we get crapped on by all and sundry.
And, I am thinking of lots more when I consider how whether Canada is worth saving for we in Alberta..
And, I apologize for my rant but you caught me at "time."
Great run down Ken. I am firmly on the free Alberta from Ottawa side. The Canadian constitution is certainly not in Alberta's favour. Just in case you wanted to add that to your rant.
You are quite correct but put it differently - and the same! - the original BNA Act and it's replacement, the Constitution Act have all been created to favor the center, i.e. Upper and Lower Canada, to the exclusion of the regions. In 1867 the regions were the Maritime provinces, now with NL known as the Atlantic provinces. Now, of course, the regions very much include we in the West. So, the Constitution is deliberately oriented to favor the center rather than the regions.
"I apologize for my rant but you caught me at 'time.'"
No worries, I used to live in Edmonton. When I'm talking to people elsewhere about Alberta's grievances, what I say is that Albertans feel like a breadwinner who's not just taken for granted, but harshly criticized for destroying the environment: https://vancouverkingsway.ca/coercion
"Yes, Horgan tried to stop it but he was inspired by / followed the lead of / was surpassed by the Face Painter."
I know you don't like Trudeau, but I would disagree pretty strongly. Notley made it crystal clear to Trudeau: after Obama blocked KXL, Alberta was willing to bring in a serious climate policy, but the deal was that Alberta needed more pipeline capacity to tidewater.
As Trudeau put it in 2017: "No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there. The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure this is done responsibly, safely and sustainably."
The shorthand version, which he repeated countless times: "The environment and the economy go hand in hand."
(By the way, it was the courts that shut down Northern Gateway, not Trudeau. Northern Gateway was so radioactively unpopular in BC that the Harper government basically backed away from it as far as they could. They knew it was dead on arrival - they sent out the 2014 approval by press release with no cabinet minister to take questions, and they said that "no particular project is a national priority" (!!). They courts ended up quashing Harper's approval, saying that the consultation with BC First Nations had been completely perfunctory. In the case of Northern Gateway, restarting the consultations would have been completely pointless.)
She is articulate. Comes off sounding well. But listen carefully and it’s about an industry more than a province. She has been clear that her understanding is the success of the industry will trickle down to the province. And so the industry must be served.
I have always been distrustful of her as any time she has spoken on a topic that I have more than superficial knowledge of, she has been stunningly uninformed.
What you are saying applies also to Québec with their Hydro. They even nationalized it. Maybe Alberta should do the same..Can your HEAR the nose if they did?
On part two I would like to add an addendum (if that makes sense) or three to the discussion on the Mexican War. By 1800 or so the United States had expanded westward to the Mississippi River and had absorbed the Ohio River, its most important northeasrern tributary. The Mississippi was vital to the commerce originating from the Ohio Valley and New Orleans was the gateway that controlled access to and from the river. The Louisiana Territory was French and Napoleon sent an army to occupy it with the intention, apparently, of preventing the English from doing so. He billited his army on Haiti for the invasion and promptly lost 40,000 soldiers to malaria. He could not replace those men due to difficulties he was having on the continent so he withdrew his army and sold the Territory to US to prevent the English from claiming it. Which they more or less attempted in 1812. Hence Johnny Horton's musical fame to us oldsters.
Across the river from New Orleans was Mexico, e.i. Texas, while theoretically controlled by Mexico was in actuality ruled by the Comanche Indians who had evicted the Apaches and raided from north central Mexico to Kansas. They terrified absolutely everyone regardless of race. There is an excellent book entitled "Empire of the Summer Moon" on this subject. At this time the Mexican Government was inviting Americans to settle in Texas and become Mexican citizens. One theory is that the Mexican Government did this so that the Comanches would have someone else to attack and act as a buffer to Mexican sattlements. The American settlers took up the first part of the offer but not the second so we got the Alamo and John Wayne defending. It to the end. I will agree with Ms Greenberg implied assertion that the United States supported the Texans in their revolt against Mexican rule and that the instigateg the Mexican American War. Texas as part of Mexico would have been to great a threat to New Orleans for America to tolerate.
As another addendum, William Walker did not initially invade Nicaragua. At the time the Conservatives and the Liberals were at war and Walker, a less then successful newspaper reporter apparently, got himself and a ragtag pretend army invited down by the Liberals (I think) to help defeat the Conservatives. Which he did. But instead of going home, he decided that he like the place so much that he made himslf king and tried to incorporate Honduras into the realm. As expected, war ensued he got chased out, returned, with great vocal support from American newspapers, go chased out again. Not giving up he tried again but got intercepted by the Royal Navy and handed over to the Hondurans, who promptly hanged him. Some really interesting history in that part of the world and American involvment, official or otherwise, there.
Trudeau and company rushed down to Mara-A-Lago to grovel. Trudeau said they joked about the 51st state issue. Then he decided he didn't like the joke so is looking for an all out trade war and is preparing billions of dollars of stimulus packages for Canadians. Will he then call an emergency to try to keep the Liberals in power until Oct 2026? Wouldn't put it past him.
You clearly don’t know what traitorous behaviour actually is to accuse Smith of having done so. Nor is there any evidence that Smith grovelled to Trump. Did Trudeau, Leblanc and Joly also grovel when they were at Mar-a-Lago or is only conservative premiers of Alberta can do?
Not a matter of bringing a knife to a gunfight or selling more or less oil & gas (or electricity) down south. Smith threw away a bargaining chip, nobody up here wants to play that chip but 110% no need to throw it away as she has repeatedly tried to do, a basic negotiation screw-up by Smith.
And, duh, I think most folks in the great north would expect the premier of Alberta, any premier of Alberta, to try to sell more oil & gas to any US president in a face to face meeting. Why is that considered such a breakthrough? Maybe she should try to get XL back on track using some of that AB oil&gas royalty monies, the fed taxpayer paid for TransMountain.
Re Team Canada, it's a big challenge to penetrate the very loud and diverse noises in the Washington DC dome. It's just plain weird the thinking that some sort of confusing scrum of Canadian voices yelling this, that and the next thing will be listened to, never mind heard in Washington. The anti-Team Canada nonsense is journo pontificating by the scrumsters on a topic they know zip about, ie. how to get heard by the Washington DC folks. A lot more Washington ears heard (and even saw) JT's sitdowns with CNN and CNBC than Ms Smith's cocktail chatter with Mr Trump and Mr O'Leary.
Ms. Smith continues to speak from her heart and from her head. She makes die hard Albertans proud. She is smart, informed, interested and engaged when she is afforded a fair platform to share her thoughts. It is disheartening to know that speaking the Alberta case seems to many, to be no more than ‘more whining’. It is so much more than that. It is us saying we matter! it runs deep into our hearts and our minds. It ran deep in my fathers mind, in his fathers mind. It represents a big part of who we are. Her eloquent presenting of the business case’ for the development of Alberta oil reserves ‘should’ cause all Canadians to pause and give thought to how this resource benefits Canada in particular and gives us trading leverage with the US, a paying customer. Just slightly more effective than ketchup! Perhaps that the ‘newest version of Liberals’ are now focused on using Alberta oil development to help them get re-elected (really guys and girl?) maybe just maybe we can reignite that once robust industry to the benefit of all of steam Canada players. A boy has gotta have a dream no?
This interview reminds me why I listen to people that I largely do not agree with. I do not want to sit in an echo chamber and to avoid that I want to hear considered views which are contrarian to my own.
I was surprised by Ms. Smith’s tactic to offer more oil and gas as opposed to threatening to cut them off. That’s a different tack that has potential. Given her governments frankly repressive legislations this was unexpected.
I don’t always agree with Paul Wells either, but his thoughts are concise and well formed.
Patty, as I understand matters, the BC wine was being sold directly to consumers in Alberta, in some cases in considerable quantities.
There are two issues that arise with that. First, one could argue that Alberta laws on distribution to minors or majors or whomever could not be enforced. As near as I can tell, this was not an issue. Damned fine!
The second issue was the real problem. The BC wineries sold the wine directly to Albertans and collected BC tax. Naturally. They did not, however, collect Alberta tax and that was the problem: Alberta wanted it's money but the wineries didn't want to do it. Clearly, a mechanism had to be worked out and it was and now that BC wine is available to Albertans.
A small story to illustrate. Some years ago, my neighbor's daughter got married. Her father (my neighbor) had the previous year purchased quite a number of cartons of wine from a BC winery so he said to his daughter, "I'll provide the wine for the reception." And he did.
He took the requisite number of cases to the commercial establishment where the reception was to be held but they wouldn't serve it unless he first went to the Alberta liquor folks and paid the tax. Once he provided a receipt for the tax paid, they had no problem and served the wine to all and sundry. The issue was not that they wanted to sell wine themselves but that they feared for their liquor license.
So, long story short, the issue was about money and is now resolved to the (grudging?) satisfaction of all.
A classic example, Ken, of why we must dismantle internal trade barriers as soon as possible. Free trade within Canada is, at the very least, as important as with our southern neighbours.
Thanks for another thought provoking podcast. I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks "retaliatory tariffs" is a winning strategy - or a strategy at all, for that matter. Premier Smith makes excellent points in support of e.g. keeping our powder dry. EXCEPT: we know that Trump operates - and often succeeds - by sowing dissent, employing divide and conquer techniques and creating confusion. So the need to demonstrate unity and resolve is real, too. Seems to me that accusing the rest of Canada of "dumping on Alberta" wins political points in Alberta at the (potential) expense of our sovereignty and plays into Trump's hands. As the Premier points out, this trade war is not simply about trade.
On the other hand, Joanne, I suspect that you don't live in our fine province and haven't seen the devastation visited upon us by the Trudeaux, pere and fils, as well as other (not so) fine Central Canadians.
There has been some discussion in other publications about the main thing Trump is looking for: to renegotiate all trade deals. The speculation is based on a paper written by one of his advisers, Stephen Miran, and is called "A Users Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System." In our case Trump wants us to drop protectionist policies to do with supply management of dairy and poultry, allow US firms into our telecommunications system, open up our banking system, stop taxing tech and internet companies, softwood lumber deals etc. Instead of retaliatory tariffs, our politicians should say to Mr. Trump "we want to open up the USMCA and renegotiate, tell us what you want to talk about and we can all get to the table and come up with a new deal that satisfies everyone." And then maybe he would hold off on tariffs. There is also speculation that the Liberals want tariffs so they can run against Trump in the next election and not against Poilievre.
I agree with all that you say except for Canadian banks. And I can’t really defend my position of leaving one untouched except that the American system free for all has had (ahem) the odd speed bump over the years. I definitely enjoy the Canadian guard rails that are in place on this file. If the Americans would come and play within these walls bring them in.
I wasn't advocating for any of the issues I mentioned, I was merely pointing out that these are probably some of the policies that Trump wants to look at, certainly not a comprehensive list. Apparently the White House makes a list of trade irritants every year, so far they have chosen to not pursue them with Canada, but obviously that has changed. To take your example, banking, it probably bothers Trump that there are a number of Canadian banks that operate in the U.S., but we don't allow them in Canada. Like you, I would feel a little uncomfortable if we were overrun by U.S. banks based on the speed bumps you mention.
And in one particular case a bank operating outside of the law and getting caught red handed. That should piss off everyone. There are definitely cases of low hanging fruit for Trump to pursue and several that are indefensible other than Trump himself signed off on them in his last term so obviously they weren’t considered major irritants at that time and likely wouldn’t be now. We can assume it’s all a negotiating tactic but it’s a fairly large risk factor if the threats are followed up with concrete actions as a trade war is in neither country’s interest with Canada suffering a disproportionate wound.
Premier Smith is incredibly disingenuous. Little of what she said bears scrutiny. The similarities between her playbook, Trumps, Poilievre's, Orban's, Johnson's, and various other similarly positioned South American nativist conservatives is plain.
For example:
She complains that Alberta is being disproportionately targeted to take a hit in response to Trumps economic adventurism, while presumably being content with the gutting of Ontario and Quebec's manufacturing sector by Mr. Harper, in order to make Alberta resources more attractive. It cost millions of jobs in central Canada, and lost our self-sufficiency across industries.
Even before Trump was elected, she was unilaterally negotiating with him on behalf of Canada on Twitter, and continues to, despite negotiations not even having commenced between the appropriate levels of government.
She's determined that the issues are "the border and Arctic defense", but again, negotiations have not commenced between the appropriate levels of government, so her opinion is moot. It's also simplistic, negating the comparatively trivial degree of Canadian border issues, and that the "defense budget" is really about being held hostage to American defense purchases, and American foreign adventurism. If you buy 'em, you have to use 'em, and if you do, you have to keep on buying. This is simply a method for vassal states to keep paying tribute to the empire, and all that implies.
Ms. Smith blames everyone else for "creating divisions", but that's been her modus operandi 24/7 since taking office, constructing a false narrative of long standing Albertan victimization by central Canadian elites.
Lastly, the premier positions "Northern Gateway" and "Energy East" pipeline projects as being the "simple solution" for Canadian energy self-sufficiency, that are somehow being arbitrarily blocked by the feds. Lets remember however that Alberta has long ago taken off the table a national energy strategy, so this is already a non-starter. Add to that the fact that there are no commercial interests willing to fund these projects - because they can do their business more cheaply by other means - and all you have is an "Avro Arrow" type whimsy, rather than a proper business argument. "Well, that's because of costly over-regulation" she would claim, as if 19th century robber-baron-style practices were still desirable, that, in this case, would offload all risk onto those communities and land owners through which the infrastructure forces it's way, without compensation. If TransMountain is anything to go by, the "Energy East" pipeline would cost more than $100 billion and take 15 years to build. There will never be business case for that, particularly with the anticipated decreasing demand for crude. She knows this, so is presumably counting on another bail-out from ROW to pay for it, using the same acumen that guided Alberta to pay a billion dollars for no Keystone pipeline.
Premier Smith is wonderfully articulate, but her messaging woefully superficial and misleading. I'm remined of the former Governor of Alaska - overly confident, but full of shit.
I don’t think the Team Canada thing was ever very genuine, but Smiths boarder security comments are telling. This is what boot licking sounds like. “anticipatory obedience is political tragedy”- Timothy Snyder.
Didn't Prime Minister Harper bail out the auto sector during the Great Recession?
A complete misreading of the only sensible voice speaking on the current upsets.
I guess you've never heard of the NEP.
Smith was and still is being vilified by certain members of Laurentian Triangle. More sane people are coming to her defence.
A murder of Canadian past decisions crows are crowding the hydro lines these days. And we have a government treading water, a party doing everything except the right thing to save its skin, all the while a plethora of the sharks circling the carcass.
Wow Danielle hits it out of the park. Impressive. She’s right by the way. You don’t take a knife to a gun fight.
I've seen Danielle Smith described as a firecracker by no less that Kevin O'Leary...and this is the best interview I have heard with her that wasn't from a newscast and the time restraints of their newscasts. She is fabulous. Please more...and I would love to hear what Scott Moe from Saskatchewan has to say. I believe he really gets under Trudeau's skin and anyone that can elicit that response from that goof if someone I can respect.
Thanks Paul for interviewing the premier. A couple of observations. I believe she said that the reason she wouldn't sign the document is the leaks or noise from certain people. Not anything to do with the document itself. If that's the case, that's odd to me. If you had agreed with the document and the discussion, you would sign on to that approach, and then take on anyone who was throwing in things that were not part of that agreement.
My second observation is that Ms Smith uses the word energy, but only defines that narrowly as oil and gas. Her government has actively restricted other forms of energy. That leads me to believe this approach is about an industry, not a province or a country.
I did listen to the Tombe interview with Herle. His points included provinces and premiers giving up a lot of autonomy to reduce economic barriers inside the country, as well as less government intervention. Which Ms Smith partly picked up on. But while she remains critical of the federal government for their interventions, she didn't speak the same way about her own.
As an Albertan, I don't share the viewpoint of grievances about Central Canada. Odd that she forgot to mention Trans Mountain when she was listing projects.
Mike, I have two responses.
First, as I heard her in this interview and have heard her in other fora, she was happy about much of the content that the others signed off on. What caused her pause was that she had heard the chatter of the insiders to the effect that they were eager to use energy as a weapon so she wanted it very clear in the document that that would not occur. The flat refusal to make clear that there would be no use of an energy weapon and the chatter from the "usual suspects" made her say no.
As for your second observation, I intuit that you are speaking about the pause on renewable projects. Before the pause, any renewable project could be built just about anywhere by anyone who had the bucks. After the pause, there are certain areas that are protected from renewable project construction and there are certain new requirements (such as the requirement that arable land still be able to be used for agriculture so, perhaps, making it possible for cattle to graze on the land, etc.). My point is that the previous arrangement was described as a "wild west" in terms of no regulation whereas there is now appropriate regulation.
As for the Trans Mountain expansion, that was a project that the feds held up mercilessly, adding all sorts of new and (not at all) wonderful requirements so that the original proponents finally said enough and left. The feds realized that they had vastly overplayed their hand and were worried about the death of the project so they bought it. The vastly, vastly overpaid and their foolish additional requirements, etc. made the process far longer and just incredibly costly.
Truly, only a government with an unlimited treasury could have built it. So, yes it is built but our Alberta industry is paying for the immense cost due to incredibly high pipeline tolls based on too high cost to build. Yes, the feds bought it and built it but the feds essentially forced the proponents out of Canada and incompetently oversaw the construction. So, applause but limited applause.
Thank you, Ken, for setting out the reason Canada bought Trans Mountain. They thoroughly messed up the deal. I’m weary of hearing central Canada crowing about their generosity to have built a pipeline. If they had kept their sanctimonious fingers out of it, it would have been built with private funds for incredibly less money. So, no applause from me.
Premiers are under pressure to show their constituents that they are on the job. That is, they are protecting the interests of the residents in their province; otherwise, why have political provinces? I daresay if it weren't for the current chaos in Ottawa, premiers would undoubtedly not find it necessary to step out on their own.
Many thanks Ken. As an Albertan consumer I can think of many benefits I derive from being part of a country that has signed trade agreements. Some of these agreements had a range of economic consequences for different regions of the country. And certainly the impacts were higher in areas of the country that had more manufacturing than we do in Alberta.
As for the pipeline projects, I do understand the frustration about why some didn't go forward. There certainly are many things that the federal governments can look back on and try to improve. I also feel that the Alberta government and the industry involved could take some lessons, about getting partners onside and consultation. That's why I look at projects like the data centre near GP that Ms Smith touts, but it seems that the local nations were nit consulted prior to the ringing endorsement. That makes me wonder if there is a stubbornness to the approach. Obviously it's early days yet on that proposal.
My point is not that we in Alberta have no complaints that are valid. My point is that our benefits that we have accrued sometimes get taken for granted.
"As for the Trans Mountain expansion, that was a project that the feds held up mercilessly, adding all sorts of new and (not at all) wonderful requirements so that the original proponents finally said enough and left. The feds realized that they had vastly overplayed their hand and were worried about the death of the project so they bought it. The vastly, vastly overpaid and their foolish additional requirements, etc. made the process far longer and just incredibly costly."
???
After John Horgan and the BC NDP narrowly defeated Christy Clark in the 2017 provincial election, the BC NDP tried to obstruct TMX, giving Kinder Morgan cold feet. That's why Trudeau used the biggest hammer available and bought the project outright, making it an unblockable federal project. It's now up and running, in the nick of time. https://russilwvong.com/blog/alberta-and-national-unity/
Are you thinking of Energy East?
Edit: I get Danielle Smith's point. Polls showed that a majority of BCers supported TMX all the way through, but there was a pretty large minority who wanted to stop it. Trudeau burned a lot of political capital in BC to get TMX built, both approving it in the first place and then buying it.
Russil, I am thinking of TMX, certainly. Yes, Horgan tried to stop it but he was inspired by / followed the lead of / was surpassed by the Face Painter.
I am thinking of Energy East. Both the Quebec and federal governments changed the rules and put up so many more, so many additional obstacles that the cost to get through those obstacles became so onerous that TransCanada, the proponent, simply said it was uneconomic - because of those obstacles - and walked away. Oh, pretty much what Kinder Morgan did with TMX.
I am thinking of Northern Gateway where an approved project was just summarily shut down by the Face Painter.
I am thinking of the tanker ban.
I am thinking of KXL where the Face Painter did not even protest when Biden cancelled a previously issued permit to construct.
I am thinking of the No More Pipelines bill.
I am thinking of the statement that the Face Painter would like to shut down all oilsands plants.
I am thinking that Alberta sends in taxes tens of billions of dollars a year to the feds more than it receives and that money is used to allow the feds to wage economic warfare on us - see above.
I am thinking that Alberta sends so much more money to the feds than we receive and one province in particular demands that much and more and then calls our oil "dirty" and vows that pipelines will never cross their territory and the feds - who have the legal responsibility in that case - never, ever, ever speak up for us.
I am thinking that Quebec could easily become far wealthier but it has cancelled all permits to explore for energy - that is considered by experts to be prolific - so they can be "pure" - and keep receiving equalization as a have not province rather than allowing exploration of the area and becoming a have province. That is, they want our money from resources but they don't want resources there.
I am thinking that we have just a whole lot of renewable energy, wind and solar, among the most in Canada, but when we pause the development so that we can make the policy more coherent and better for the population of the province on a long term basis we get crapped on by all and sundry.
And, I am thinking of lots more when I consider how whether Canada is worth saving for we in Alberta..
And, I apologize for my rant but you caught me at "time."
Great run down Ken. I am firmly on the free Alberta from Ottawa side. The Canadian constitution is certainly not in Alberta's favour. Just in case you wanted to add that to your rant.
You are quite correct but put it differently - and the same! - the original BNA Act and it's replacement, the Constitution Act have all been created to favor the center, i.e. Upper and Lower Canada, to the exclusion of the regions. In 1867 the regions were the Maritime provinces, now with NL known as the Atlantic provinces. Now, of course, the regions very much include we in the West. So, the Constitution is deliberately oriented to favor the center rather than the regions.
"I apologize for my rant but you caught me at 'time.'"
No worries, I used to live in Edmonton. When I'm talking to people elsewhere about Alberta's grievances, what I say is that Albertans feel like a breadwinner who's not just taken for granted, but harshly criticized for destroying the environment: https://vancouverkingsway.ca/coercion
"Yes, Horgan tried to stop it but he was inspired by / followed the lead of / was surpassed by the Face Painter."
I know you don't like Trudeau, but I would disagree pretty strongly. Notley made it crystal clear to Trudeau: after Obama blocked KXL, Alberta was willing to bring in a serious climate policy, but the deal was that Alberta needed more pipeline capacity to tidewater.
As Trudeau put it in 2017: "No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there. The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure this is done responsibly, safely and sustainably."
The shorthand version, which he repeated countless times: "The environment and the economy go hand in hand."
(By the way, it was the courts that shut down Northern Gateway, not Trudeau. Northern Gateway was so radioactively unpopular in BC that the Harper government basically backed away from it as far as they could. They knew it was dead on arrival - they sent out the 2014 approval by press release with no cabinet minister to take questions, and they said that "no particular project is a national priority" (!!). They courts ended up quashing Harper's approval, saying that the consultation with BC First Nations had been completely perfunctory. In the case of Northern Gateway, restarting the consultations would have been completely pointless.)
1) Danielle Smith is starting to make a lot of sense here.
2) Thank you, Paul, for making us discover Amy Greenberg. Her work is fascinating. Looking forward to reading her work!
She is articulate. Comes off sounding well. But listen carefully and it’s about an industry more than a province. She has been clear that her understanding is the success of the industry will trickle down to the province. And so the industry must be served.
I have always been distrustful of her as any time she has spoken on a topic that I have more than superficial knowledge of, she has been stunningly uninformed.
What you are saying applies also to Québec with their Hydro. They even nationalized it. Maybe Alberta should do the same..Can your HEAR the nose if they did?
One part one I can only agree with Smith.
On part two I would like to add an addendum (if that makes sense) or three to the discussion on the Mexican War. By 1800 or so the United States had expanded westward to the Mississippi River and had absorbed the Ohio River, its most important northeasrern tributary. The Mississippi was vital to the commerce originating from the Ohio Valley and New Orleans was the gateway that controlled access to and from the river. The Louisiana Territory was French and Napoleon sent an army to occupy it with the intention, apparently, of preventing the English from doing so. He billited his army on Haiti for the invasion and promptly lost 40,000 soldiers to malaria. He could not replace those men due to difficulties he was having on the continent so he withdrew his army and sold the Territory to US to prevent the English from claiming it. Which they more or less attempted in 1812. Hence Johnny Horton's musical fame to us oldsters.
Across the river from New Orleans was Mexico, e.i. Texas, while theoretically controlled by Mexico was in actuality ruled by the Comanche Indians who had evicted the Apaches and raided from north central Mexico to Kansas. They terrified absolutely everyone regardless of race. There is an excellent book entitled "Empire of the Summer Moon" on this subject. At this time the Mexican Government was inviting Americans to settle in Texas and become Mexican citizens. One theory is that the Mexican Government did this so that the Comanches would have someone else to attack and act as a buffer to Mexican sattlements. The American settlers took up the first part of the offer but not the second so we got the Alamo and John Wayne defending. It to the end. I will agree with Ms Greenberg implied assertion that the United States supported the Texans in their revolt against Mexican rule and that the instigateg the Mexican American War. Texas as part of Mexico would have been to great a threat to New Orleans for America to tolerate.
As another addendum, William Walker did not initially invade Nicaragua. At the time the Conservatives and the Liberals were at war and Walker, a less then successful newspaper reporter apparently, got himself and a ragtag pretend army invited down by the Liberals (I think) to help defeat the Conservatives. Which he did. But instead of going home, he decided that he like the place so much that he made himslf king and tried to incorporate Honduras into the realm. As expected, war ensued he got chased out, returned, with great vocal support from American newspapers, go chased out again. Not giving up he tried again but got intercepted by the Royal Navy and handed over to the Hondurans, who promptly hanged him. Some really interesting history in that part of the world and American involvment, official or otherwise, there.
This sure was interesting.
Thank you, Barry, for this additional perspective.
I like the Team Canada approach. Smith groveling to Trump was traitorous and a stupid move. I totally disagree with your post.
I guess I'll have to pick up the pieces of my shattered life and move on.
Thin skinned
Some people sure do not like to hear a woman with a brain and cojones. The thing I like most about her is she is not a whiner and a preacher.
So Trudeau and entourage going to Florida to do the same thing isn't?
Trudeau and company rushed down to Mara-A-Lago to grovel. Trudeau said they joked about the 51st state issue. Then he decided he didn't like the joke so is looking for an all out trade war and is preparing billions of dollars of stimulus packages for Canadians. Will he then call an emergency to try to keep the Liberals in power until Oct 2026? Wouldn't put it past him.
You clearly don’t know what traitorous behaviour actually is to accuse Smith of having done so. Nor is there any evidence that Smith grovelled to Trump. Did Trudeau, Leblanc and Joly also grovel when they were at Mar-a-Lago or is only conservative premiers of Alberta can do?
Not a matter of bringing a knife to a gunfight or selling more or less oil & gas (or electricity) down south. Smith threw away a bargaining chip, nobody up here wants to play that chip but 110% no need to throw it away as she has repeatedly tried to do, a basic negotiation screw-up by Smith.
And, duh, I think most folks in the great north would expect the premier of Alberta, any premier of Alberta, to try to sell more oil & gas to any US president in a face to face meeting. Why is that considered such a breakthrough? Maybe she should try to get XL back on track using some of that AB oil&gas royalty monies, the fed taxpayer paid for TransMountain.
Re Team Canada, it's a big challenge to penetrate the very loud and diverse noises in the Washington DC dome. It's just plain weird the thinking that some sort of confusing scrum of Canadian voices yelling this, that and the next thing will be listened to, never mind heard in Washington. The anti-Team Canada nonsense is journo pontificating by the scrumsters on a topic they know zip about, ie. how to get heard by the Washington DC folks. A lot more Washington ears heard (and even saw) JT's sitdowns with CNN and CNBC than Ms Smith's cocktail chatter with Mr Trump and Mr O'Leary.
Ms. Smith continues to speak from her heart and from her head. She makes die hard Albertans proud. She is smart, informed, interested and engaged when she is afforded a fair platform to share her thoughts. It is disheartening to know that speaking the Alberta case seems to many, to be no more than ‘more whining’. It is so much more than that. It is us saying we matter! it runs deep into our hearts and our minds. It ran deep in my fathers mind, in his fathers mind. It represents a big part of who we are. Her eloquent presenting of the business case’ for the development of Alberta oil reserves ‘should’ cause all Canadians to pause and give thought to how this resource benefits Canada in particular and gives us trading leverage with the US, a paying customer. Just slightly more effective than ketchup! Perhaps that the ‘newest version of Liberals’ are now focused on using Alberta oil development to help them get re-elected (really guys and girl?) maybe just maybe we can reignite that once robust industry to the benefit of all of steam Canada players. A boy has gotta have a dream no?
Yes, Ron, you can dream and I also have the same dream.
I have, however, concluded that our dream is not to be due to the imperatives of the Center.
I'm guessing it is not a real estate man from Queen's University, but rather a real estate man from Queens, NY?
Sorry, for proper use of apostrophes I charge extra. Kidding! Thanks for the catch.
This interview reminds me why I listen to people that I largely do not agree with. I do not want to sit in an echo chamber and to avoid that I want to hear considered views which are contrarian to my own.
I was surprised by Ms. Smith’s tactic to offer more oil and gas as opposed to threatening to cut them off. That’s a different tack that has potential. Given her governments frankly repressive legislations this was unexpected.
I don’t always agree with Paul Wells either, but his thoughts are concise and well formed.
Keep up the good work.
So...if Ms. Smith is so good at cooperation...why did she REALLY not want BC wine?
Patty, as I understand matters, the BC wine was being sold directly to consumers in Alberta, in some cases in considerable quantities.
There are two issues that arise with that. First, one could argue that Alberta laws on distribution to minors or majors or whomever could not be enforced. As near as I can tell, this was not an issue. Damned fine!
The second issue was the real problem. The BC wineries sold the wine directly to Albertans and collected BC tax. Naturally. They did not, however, collect Alberta tax and that was the problem: Alberta wanted it's money but the wineries didn't want to do it. Clearly, a mechanism had to be worked out and it was and now that BC wine is available to Albertans.
A small story to illustrate. Some years ago, my neighbor's daughter got married. Her father (my neighbor) had the previous year purchased quite a number of cartons of wine from a BC winery so he said to his daughter, "I'll provide the wine for the reception." And he did.
He took the requisite number of cases to the commercial establishment where the reception was to be held but they wouldn't serve it unless he first went to the Alberta liquor folks and paid the tax. Once he provided a receipt for the tax paid, they had no problem and served the wine to all and sundry. The issue was not that they wanted to sell wine themselves but that they feared for their liquor license.
So, long story short, the issue was about money and is now resolved to the (grudging?) satisfaction of all.
A classic example, Ken, of why we must dismantle internal trade barriers as soon as possible. Free trade within Canada is, at the very least, as important as with our southern neighbours.
Brittanicus, I have two comments.
One, I agree wholeheartedly.
Two, it will never happen.
You may call me cynical but I prefer to be called realistic about Canada and Canadian politicians.
Thanks for another thought provoking podcast. I find it hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks "retaliatory tariffs" is a winning strategy - or a strategy at all, for that matter. Premier Smith makes excellent points in support of e.g. keeping our powder dry. EXCEPT: we know that Trump operates - and often succeeds - by sowing dissent, employing divide and conquer techniques and creating confusion. So the need to demonstrate unity and resolve is real, too. Seems to me that accusing the rest of Canada of "dumping on Alberta" wins political points in Alberta at the (potential) expense of our sovereignty and plays into Trump's hands. As the Premier points out, this trade war is not simply about trade.
On the other hand, Joanne, I suspect that you don't live in our fine province and haven't seen the devastation visited upon us by the Trudeaux, pere and fils, as well as other (not so) fine Central Canadians.
There has been some discussion in other publications about the main thing Trump is looking for: to renegotiate all trade deals. The speculation is based on a paper written by one of his advisers, Stephen Miran, and is called "A Users Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System." In our case Trump wants us to drop protectionist policies to do with supply management of dairy and poultry, allow US firms into our telecommunications system, open up our banking system, stop taxing tech and internet companies, softwood lumber deals etc. Instead of retaliatory tariffs, our politicians should say to Mr. Trump "we want to open up the USMCA and renegotiate, tell us what you want to talk about and we can all get to the table and come up with a new deal that satisfies everyone." And then maybe he would hold off on tariffs. There is also speculation that the Liberals want tariffs so they can run against Trump in the next election and not against Poilievre.
I agree with all that you say except for Canadian banks. And I can’t really defend my position of leaving one untouched except that the American system free for all has had (ahem) the odd speed bump over the years. I definitely enjoy the Canadian guard rails that are in place on this file. If the Americans would come and play within these walls bring them in.
I wasn't advocating for any of the issues I mentioned, I was merely pointing out that these are probably some of the policies that Trump wants to look at, certainly not a comprehensive list. Apparently the White House makes a list of trade irritants every year, so far they have chosen to not pursue them with Canada, but obviously that has changed. To take your example, banking, it probably bothers Trump that there are a number of Canadian banks that operate in the U.S., but we don't allow them in Canada. Like you, I would feel a little uncomfortable if we were overrun by U.S. banks based on the speed bumps you mention.
And in one particular case a bank operating outside of the law and getting caught red handed. That should piss off everyone. There are definitely cases of low hanging fruit for Trump to pursue and several that are indefensible other than Trump himself signed off on them in his last term so obviously they weren’t considered major irritants at that time and likely wouldn’t be now. We can assume it’s all a negotiating tactic but it’s a fairly large risk factor if the threats are followed up with concrete actions as a trade war is in neither country’s interest with Canada suffering a disproportionate wound.