Connect with us

Alberta

Alberta’s Danielle Smith meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago for ‘friendly and constructive’ meeting

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Meetings of these kinds in the past would normally have included Canada’s official ambassador, however, Smith has not waited for the Trudeau government to advocate for Canadian energy and instead has gone at it alone. 

Premier of Alberta Danielle Smith met with incoming U.S. President Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago home to champion “ethically” sourced Albertan oil and gas only days before the president-elect is set to be inaugurated, in what she said was a “friendly and constructive” meeting.  

“Over the last 24 hours I had the opportunity to meet President @realdonaldtrump at Mar-a-Lago last night and at his golf club this morning. We had a friendly and constructive conversation during which I emphasized the mutual importance of the U.S. – Canadian energy relationship, and specifically, how hundreds of thousands of American jobs are supported by energy exports from Alberta,” wrote Smith on X about her weekend meeting with Trump. 

 

The unprecedented meeting came at the same time Trump appears to have soured relations with Canadian Liberal elites over his annexation talk.  

It also comes after soon-to-be-gone Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Trump at Mar-a-lago last month and appeared to refuse to step up and defend the interests of Canadian energy over Trump’s threats to slap high tariffs on Canadian goods once he takes office.

Smith noted about her meeting with Trump that she was able to have “similar discussions” about championing Albertan energy “with several key allies of the incoming administration and was encouraged to hear their support for a strong energy and security relationship with Canada.” 

“On behalf of Albertans, I will continue to engage in constructive dialogue and diplomacy with the incoming administration and elected federal and state officials from both parties and will do all I can to further Alberta’s and Canada’s interests,” she wrote. 

Since taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda like the agendas being pushed by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” 

Smit, on the other hand, has been a fierce opponent of Trudeau’s green energy agenda and an advocate for the oil and gas industry.  

She will be attending Trump’s inauguration later next week.  

Observer notes Trump made ‘beeline’ for Smith to meet her at Mar-a-Lago event 

Political analyst for the Calgary Sun Rick Bell, who knows Smith and speaks with her regularly, noted about her meeting with Trump that when “Trump and his family and entourage” arrived he made “a beeline for Smith. He has obviously been told she is the premier of Alberta.” 

“Smith, as you know, has recently been speaking non-stop about oil and gas and is no fan of tariffs,” Bell wrote. 

Bell noted how Smith and Trump spoke about “energy, about oil and gas, about Alberta and Canada,” adding that she told him that production of Alberta oil is “ramping up in a big way and the U.S. buys a lot of Alberta oil.” 

“Smith asks if Trump wants more of our oil. Trump does. It is by far Canada’s biggest export to the Americans,” wrote Bell.  

Smith, in her message about her meeting with Trump, noted that Canada and the United States are both “proud and independent nations with one of the most important security alliances on earth and the largest economic partnership in history.” 

She emphasized how Alberta needs to preserve its “independence while we grow this critical partnership for the benefit of Canadians and Americans for generations to come.” 

Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world, with most of it being in Alberta, which is produced ethically, unlike in other nations. 

Smith’s meeting with Trump is unusual in that it has happened right before he will become president. Meetings of these kinds in the past would normally have included Canada’s official ambassador, however, Smith has not waited for the Trudeau government to advocate for Canadian energy and instead has gone at it alone. 

Recently, Trump has drawn the ire of many Canadian politicians, including Conservatives, after he said rather brazenly last week that he was considering using “economic force” to make Canada the 51st U.S. state.  

He claimed that there is a $200 billion trade deficit between Canada and the U.S. regarding spending on “subsidies” and the fact the U.S. military is there to also “protect Canada.” 

Smith and others did not seem too offended by Trump’s remarks, most likely realizing they may be part of his negotiating strategy.  

Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre, who likely will soon be the nation’s next prime minister, however, had choice words for Trump.

Trump’s comments came only a day after Trudeau announced he plans to step down as Liberal Party leader once a new leader has been chosen. He was approved by Governor General Mary Simon to prorogue parliament until March 24. This means he is still serving as prime minister, but all parliamentary business has been stopped. 

Smith was against forced COVID jabs, her United Conservative government has in recent months banned men from competing in women’s sports came and passed a bill banning so-called “top and bottom” surgeries for minors as well as other extreme forms of transgender ideology.  

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

The High Cost Of Continued Western Canadian Alienation

Published on

From EnergyNow.Ca

By Jim Warren

Energy Issues Carney Must Commit to if He Truly Cares About National Cohesion and be Different From Trudeau

If the stars fail to align in the majority of Western Canada’s favour and voters from Central Canada and the Maritimes re-elect a Liberal government on April 28, it will stand as a tragic rejection of the aspirations of the oil producing provinces and a threat to national cohesion.

As of today Mark Carney has not clearly and unequivocally promised to tear down the Liberal policy wall blocking growth in oil and gas exports. Yes, he recently claimed to favour energy corridors, but just two weeks earlier he backtracked on a similar commitment.

There are some promises Carney hopefully won’t honour. He has pledged to impose punitive emissions taxes on Canadian industry. But that’s supposedly alright because Carney has liberally sprinkled that promise with pixie dust. This will magically ensure any associated increases in the cost of living will disappear. Liberal wizardry will similarly vaporize any harm Carbon Tax 2.0 might do to the competitive capacity of Canadian exporters.

Carney has as also promised to impose border taxes on imports from countries that lack the Liberals’ zeal for saving the planet. These are not supposed to raise Canadians’ cost of living by much, but if they do we can take pride in doing our part to save the planet. We can feel good about ourselves while shopping for groceries we can’t afford to buy.

There is ample bad news in what Carney has promised to do. No less disturbing is what he has not agreed to do. Oil and gas sector leaders have been telling Carney what needs to be done, but that doesn’t mean he’s been listening.

The Build Canada Now action plan announced last week by western energy industry leaders lays out a concise five-point plan for growing the oil and gas sector. If Mark Carney wants to convince his more skeptical detractors that he is truly concerned about Canadian prosperity, he should consider getting a tattoo that celebrates the five points.

Yet, if he got onside with the five points and could be trusted, would it not be a step in the right direction? Sure, but it would also be great if unicorns were real.

The purpose of the Build Canada Now action plan couldn’t be much more clearly and concisely stated. “For the oil and natural gas sector to expand and energy infrastructure to be built, Canada’s federal political leaders can create an environment that will:

1. Simplify regulation. The federal government’s Impact Assessment Act and West Coast tanker ban are impeding development and need to be overhauled and simplified. Regulatory processes need to be streamlined, and decisions need to withstand judicial challenges.

2. Commit to firm deadlines for project approvals. The federal government needs to reduce regulatory timelines so that major projects are approved within 6 months of application.

3. Grow production. The federal government’s unlegislated cap on emissions must be eliminated to allow the sector to reach its full potential.

4. Attract investment. The federal carbon levy on large emitters is not globally cost competitive and should be repealed to allow provincial governments to set more suitable carbon regulations.

5. Incent Indigenous co-investment opportunities. The federal government needs to provide Indigenous loan guarantees at scale so industry may create infrastructure ownership opportunities to increase prosperity for communities and to ensure that Indigenous communities benefit from development.”

As they say the devil is often in the details. But it would be an error to complicate the message with too much detail in the context of an election campaign. We want to avoid sacrificing the good on behalf of the perfect. The plan needs to be readily understandable to voters and the media. We live in the age of the ten second sound bite so the plan has to be something that can be communicated succinctly.

Nevertheless, there is much more to be done. If Carney hopes to feel welcome in large sections of the west he needs to back away from many of promises he’s already made. And there are many Liberal policies besides Bill C-69 and C-48 that need to be rescinded or significantly modified.

Liberal imposed limitations on free speech have to go. In a free society publicizing the improvements oil and gas companies are making on behalf of environmental protection should not be a crime.

There is a morass of emissions reduction regulations, mandates, targets and deadlines that need to be rethought and/or rescinded. These include measures like the emissions cap, the clean electricity standard, EV mandates and carbon taxes. Similarly, plans for imposing restrictions on industries besides oil and gas, such as agriculture, need to be dropped. These include mandatory reductions in the use of nitrogen fertilizer and attacks (thus far only rhetorical) on cattle ranching.

A good starting point for addressing these issues would be meaningful federal-provincial negotiations. But that won’t work if the Liberals allow Quebec to veto energy projects that are in the national interest. If Quebec insists on being obstructive, the producing provinces in the west will insist that its equalization welfare be reduced or cancelled.

Virtually all of the Liberal policy measures noted above are inflationary and reduce the profitability and competitive capacity of our exporters. Adding to Canada’s already high cost of living on behalf of overly zealous, unachievable emissions reduction goals is unnecessary as well as socially unacceptable.

We probably all have our own policy change preferences. One of my personal favourites would require the federal government to cease funding environmental organizations that disrupt energy projects with unlawful protests and file frivolous slap suits to block pipelines.

Admittedly, it is a rare thing to have all of one’s policy preferences satisfied in a democracy. And it is wise to stick to a short wish list during a federal election campaign. Putting some of the foregoing issues on the back burner is okay provided we don’t forget them there.

But what if few or any of the oil and gas producing provinces’ demands are accepted by Carney and he still manages to become prime minister?

We are currently confronted by a dangerous level of geopolitical uncertainty. The prospects of a global trade war and its effects on an export-reliant country like Canada are daunting to say the least.

Dividing the country further by once again stifling the legitimate aspirations of the majority of people in Alberta and Saskatchewan will not be helpful. (I could add voters from the northeast and interior of B.C., and southwestern Manitoba to the club of the seriously disgruntled.)

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Next federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

With the tariff war continuing and the federal election underway, Canadians should understand what the last federal government seemingly did not—a strong Alberta makes for a stronger Canada.

And yet, current federal policies disproportionately and negatively impact the province. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.

Meanwhile, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues and national programs than they receive back in spending on transfers and programs including the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) because Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population.

For instance, since 1976 Alberta’s employment rate (the number of employed people as a share of the population 15 years of age and over) has averaged 67.4 per cent compared to 59.7 per cent in the rest of Canada, and annual market income (including employment and investment income) has exceeded that in the other provinces by $10,918 (on average).

As a result, Alberta’s total net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times as much as the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians. That’s a massive outsized contribution given Alberta’s population, which is smaller than B.C. and much smaller than Ontario.

Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP is particularly significant. From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of total CPP payments paid to retirees in Canada while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Albertans made a cumulative net contribution to the CPP (the difference between total CPP contributions made by Albertans and CPP benefits paid to retirees in Alberta) of $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than the net contribution of B.C., the only other net contributing province to the CPP. Indeed, only two of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP contribute more in payroll taxes to the program than their residents receive back in benefits.

So what would happen if Alberta withdrew from the CPP?

For starters, the basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent (typically deducted from our paycheques) for Canadians outside Alberta (excluding Quebec) would have to increase for the program to remain sustainable. For a new standalone plan in Alberta, the rate would likely be lower, with estimates ranging from 5.85 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In other words, based on these estimates, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians while the payroll tax would have to increase for the rest of the country while the benefits remained the same.

Finally, despite any claims to the contrary, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta’s demographic advantage, which fuels its outsized contribution to the CPP, will only widen in the years ahead. Alberta will likely maintain relatively high employment rates and continue to welcome workers from across Canada and around the world. And considering Alberta recorded the highest average inflation-adjusted economic growth in Canada since 1981, with Albertans’ inflation-adjusted market income exceeding the average of the other provinces every year since 1971, Albertans will likely continue to pay an outsized portion for the CPP. Of course, the idea for Alberta to withdraw from the CPP and create its own provincial plan isn’t new. In 2001, several notable public figures, including Stephen Harper, wrote the famous Alberta “firewall” letter suggesting the province should take control of its future after being marginalized by the federal government.

The next federal government—whoever that may be—should understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation. For a stronger Canada, especially during uncertain times, Ottawa should support a strong Alberta including its energy industry.

Continue Reading

Trending

X