Alberta
Danielle Smith vows Alberta won’t be ‘transitioning away’ from oil, natural gas

From LifeSiteNews
‘Energy security and affordability are comparable with sustainability. Alberta is actively reducing emissions through technology, not taxes’
Alberta is refusing to phase out oil and gas, despite the regulations proposed by Prime Minster Justin Trudeau’s government.
On November 20, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the province will focus on reducing emissions but will not eliminate the gas and oil sector, as effectively demanded by the Trudeau government.
Energy security and affordability are comparable with sustainability. Alberta is actively reducing emissions through technology, not taxes.
But, we will not be transitioning away from oil and natural gas. pic.twitter.com/H6k9czBOjN
— Danielle Smith (@ABDanielleSmith) November 20, 2023
“Energy security and affordability are comparable with sustainability. Alberta is actively reducing emissions through technology, not taxes,” she wrote.
“But, we will not be transitioning away from oil and natural gas,” Smith declared.
Also on November 20, Smith blasted Alberta’s leader of the provincial opposition, the New Democratic Party’s Rachel Notley, for pushing for energy regulations and the carbon tax on Albertans.
“I think Albertans wish the member of the opposite would stand up for Albertans for a change rather than take marching orders from the federal NDP leader,” she said, referring to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh who has sided with the Liberal government in favor of the carbon tax and energy regulations.
“If they had just agreed to eliminate the carbon tax, it would reduce inflation 16%, which means we wouldn’t have to see an increase in interest rates, which means people could afford to buy a house as well,” she continued, referring to information from the Bank of Canada.
“Maybe she should stand up for Albertans for a change,” Smith declared.
WATCH: Danielle Smith destroys Jagmeet Singh, Rachel Notley, and rips apart the evil deal the two have, that is stabbing Albertans in the back. W Danielle.pic.twitter.com/xHTFm81O5M
— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) November 21, 2023
Smith’s statements come in response to Trudeau attempting to force a net zero emissions goal on provinces across Canada, regardless of the negative effects it will have on Canadians’ lives.
Trudeau has also refused to extend the carbon tax exemption to all forms of home heating, instead only exempting the forms of heating used in the Liberal-held Atlantic provinces.
Smith has repeatedly refused to submit to the Liberal government’s demands, warning that Canadians could freeze in the winter if the new “clean emissions” regulations are enforced.
Smith’s warnings are not unfounded. Alberta’s electric grid operator, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), warned that Trudeau’s 2035 net-zero power grid goal will mean instability for the western province and are “not feasible.”
In September, Smith announced that she is preparing to use her province’s Sovereignty Act to fight the energy regulations.
The draft version of the federal government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) states that there will be billions of higher costs associated with a so-called “green” power transition, especially in the resource-rich provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, which use natural gas and coal to fuel power plants.
In May, Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault declared that violating environmental regulations banning the use of coal and gas-fired power after 2035 may even result in criminal sanctions, a statement that only increased the tension between the federal government and the provinces opposed to the proposed policies.
The Trudeau government also recently threatened to withhold billions of taxpayer money to provinces that will continue to use resources such as natural gas, oil and coal to generate electricity beyond 2035.
In addition to Smith, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has likewise promised to fight back against the new regulations, saying recently that “Trudeau’s net-zero electricity regulations are unaffordable, unrealistic and unconstitutional.”
“They will drive electricity rates through the roof and leave Saskatchewan with an unreliable power supply. Our government will not let the federal government do that to the Saskatchewan people,” he charged.
The Trudeau government’s current environmental goals – in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.
The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization with which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.
Alberta
Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

David Clinton
Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution
Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).
So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.
You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.
So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.
According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.
But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:
- Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
- Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?
The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?
For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?
And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?
To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:
![]() |
For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.
And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:
Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).
So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.
Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.
Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.
Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.
This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.
Subscribe to The Audit.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Alberta
Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Premier Danielle Smith issued the following statement on the April 2, 2025 U.S. tariff announcement:
“Today was an important win for Canada and Alberta, as it appears the United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. administration.
“This is precisely what I have been advocating for from the U.S. administration for months.
“It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including zero per cent tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and host of other Canadian goods.
“There is still work to be done, of course. Unfortunately, tariffs previously announced by the United States on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum have not been removed. The efforts of premiers and the federal government should therefore shift towards removing or significantly reducing these remaining tariffs as we go forward and ensuring affected workers across Canada are generously supported until the situation is resolved.
“I again call on all involved in our national advocacy efforts to focus on diplomacy and persuasion while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Clearly, this strategy has been the most effective to this point.
“As it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us (though there is still work to be done), it is my sincere hope that we, as Canadians, can abandon the disastrous policies that have made Canada vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States, fast-track national resource corridors, get out of the way of provincial resource development and turn our country into an independent economic juggernaut and energy superpower.”
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
Are the Jays Signing Or Declining? Only Vladdy & Bo Know For Sure
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Fixing Canada’s immigration system should be next government’s top priority
-
International10 hours ago
Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns
-
2025 Federal Election8 hours ago
Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars
-
Catherine Herridge7 hours ago
FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden Administration Was Secretly More Involved In Ukraine Than It Let On, Investigation Reveals