There is never a good time to threaten an 鈥渦nprecedented鈥 national unity crisis, but there are times when such a threat is particularly damaging. Like now. But that hasn鈥檛 stopped Alberta Premier Danielle Smith from looking inward and issuing such threats, even when we are under siege from an American president who is bent on sowing chaos and anxiety in our country.
Smith likes to play the scrapper, the feisty pro-Alberta premier ready to take on the evil Liberals of Ottawa at every turn. She is, of course, right to try to defend her province, but surely not by undermining the national interest.
Canadians will soon go to the polls in what will be the most important federal election in decades. We will choose a prime minister who we believe will best stand up to U.S. President Donald Trump as he threatens the annexation of this country and who can map a strategy for lessening our dependence on America. Part of this rethink involves this country鈥檚 stance on energy policy, which is being transformed on the fly.
But while she preaches patience and even-handedness with Trump, Smith continues to scream 鈥渇ire鈥 in a crowded theatre whenever it suits her, placating the U.S. president and excoriating the Canadian government. In January, after meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Largo and posing for photos with the president in his MAGA cap, Smith said any move to restrict or tax energy exports to retaliate against Trump would lead to 鈥渁 national unity crisis.鈥 Oil and gas are constitutionally the province鈥檚 responsibility and if Ottawa moved in that direction, she said she couldn鈥檛 predict what Albertans might do. In issuing such an edict, she undermined this country鈥檚 leverage in bargaining.
Thursday, she met with Prime Minister Mark Carney and issued an ultimatum for the next federal government (of any political stripe). Smith demanded that Alberta have unfettered access across the country to build pipelines and the end of greenhouse gas emissions caps on industry. She told Carney she would not accept any tax or restriction on Alberta鈥檚 oil and gas exports to the United States and huffed that her province would no longer subsidize other larger provinces who can fund themselves.
The full list of demands includes a litany of grievances, some of which have no apparent bearing on the crisis of the moment, such as her call for an end to the prohibition on single-use plastics or a ban on the federal 鈥渃ensorship鈥 of energy companies, by which she means rules that prohibit such companies from misleading the public about emissions in their advertising. For good measure, she told reporters she thought Carney could be even worse than her departed political foe Justin Trudeau.
- Gillian Steward
The mounting calls to protect Canadian sovereignty by ramping up energy production often come from self-serving quarters, but they should not be glibly dismissed. We cannot afford to be dogmatic or ideological in the fight we now find ourselves in. Yet this new approach cannot be arrived at through ultimatums. It cannot, for both moral and economic reasons, require us to simply abandon meaningful climate action. And it should no more ignore the interests of provinces that might not want pipelines than of those that do.
Carney, for his part, has already rightly signalled that 鈥 given the Trump threats 鈥 he will be more pragmatic on energy policy. He spoke of working collaboratively on emissions caps with industry and provinces rather than laying out pre-set limits on a strict timeline. He also said he wanted pipeline projects and energy corridors to be approved at a much faster pace, given the threats from Trump and the need to diversify markets. A new Canadian approach to energy and trade diversity required by Trump鈥檚 outrageous policies can be cobbled together quickly and collaboratively.
In her attempts to protect Alberta, Smith need not turn her guns again and again on those inside the tent.
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation