Premier Smith’s comments either ignorant or dishonest
By Lethbridge Herald on May 9, 2025.
Editor,
Congratulations to Danielle Smith for single-handedly embarrassing the entire province of Alberta in just one 20-minute speech.
It’s actually quite impressive how much misinformation, nationalistic pandering, and historical revisionism she managed to cram into such a short timeframe. Those 20 minutes were not just misleading they were an insult to the intelligence of anyone who values facts, accountability, and the truth just showing that she relies on the uneducated.
Let’s start with one of her first bold—and blatantly false—claims: that Canada is the only country on earth that possesses the number and quality of natural resources we have. This is objectively untrue. Countries like Russia, the United States, Brazil, and even Australia boast not only comparable but, in many cases, greater and more diversified reserves of key natural resources. Russia alone has significantly larger oil and gas reserves than Canada.
So, for a premier of a province to make such a demonstrably false claim on a national stage is either ignorant or dishonest—or both. Then, just a few minutes into her speech, she proudly states that Alberta has never asked for handouts or special treatment.
Again false. Alberta has repeatedly benefited from federal equalization programs and support during downturns in the oil and gas industry. Let’s not forget the significant federal assistance provided during the COVID-19 pandemic or during economic busts in previous decades.
Denying these facts is not only misleading—it rewrites history. Next up: the claim that the federal Liberal government has “targeted” Alberta by cancelling oil and gas projects and implementing a ban on tanker traffic that could transport oil to new markets.
This statement distorts reality. The so-called “tanker ban” (actually Bill C-48) only applies to crude oil tankers along the north coast of British Columbia—a region that is environmentally sensitive and home to several Indigenous communities that opposed such developments.
Even then, Alberta does have existing and potential routes—like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (which the federal government actually purchased and is currently constructing)—to get its oil to tidewater. So, this narrative that Alberta is being uniquely punished just doesn’t hold up.
And now, the pièce de résistance: Smith claims that federal “anti-resource development policies” have “scared away half a trillion dollars”—yes, $500 billion—in global investment in Alberta’s oil industry.
That number is not just inflated; it’s laughably disconnected from economic reality. For comparison, Alberta’s entire GDP is around $400 billion. Claiming we’ve lost more than the province produces in a year due to “scared investors” is not just misleading—it’s propaganda.
Even if you stacked together every major shelved oil project over the last decade across Canada, you wouldn’t come close to that figure. And those projects were often shelved due to global oil price collapses, corporate decisions to divest from fossil fuels, and global market shifts—not federal policies alone.
She then ends by once again flirting with the idea of Alberta separatism. It’s a recurring theme in her rhetoric—a hollow threat that has no economic or legal grounding. Alberta could maybe entertain the fantasy of separation if it actually had that magical half-trillion dollars that she was talking about.
But the reality is this: Alberta benefits enormously from being part of Canada. We receive federal transfers, we access interprovincial markets, and our people enjoy the stability and infrastructure of a well-established federal system.
Separation isn’t just unlikely, it’s financially and politically suicidal. To wrap up: Danielle Smith has proven herself to be a dangerously misinformed and ideologically driven premier who’s more concerned with stoking division than solving real problems. In a single speech, she demonstrated a lack of understanding of economics, history, federalism, and basic facts.
Joshua Dillabough
Lethbridge
18-17
I too thought Premier Smiths comments were counter-productive and also voted Liberal, not because I am a liberal party member but because I think Carney is the best person for the job. Now to your letter, several statements you make are incorrect. The last time Alberta got equalization was in 64/65 60 years ago. GDP is a measurement of goods and services produced not investment. You can make an investment and it might take 20 years to make that money back. Transfer fees? These are taxes paid to the federal treasury by Alberta taxpayers and quite frankly we pay a helluva lot more than we get back, which is fine as long as it’s used for canadian purposes not through equalization which funnels it for political purposes. I hope PM Carney takes his role and election promises seriously, time will tell.
Scroll to the Alberta chart or read the entire page.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/programs/federal-transfers/major-federal-transfers.html#Alberta
Equalization payments in Canada are federal funds distributed to provinces with lower fiscal capacity to ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and services across the country. They are based on a formula that compares a province’s ability to generate revenue per capita with the national average. Provinces with lower fiscal capacity receive payments to bring their per capita spending closer to the national average.
Sounds like someone out of high school with no life experience or perspective of economics. Maybe looking for a government job in the future so he can be a net receiver. Work for 30 years and get back to us.
Of course, rather then rebut the numbers the writer produced, you just take a shot over the bow and a lame one at that ….here..have another negative vote, jacka$$
Took a page out of your book and you complain. 🤡
Useless contribution as per normal.
Absolutely correct Joshua. Smith has wasted more money and energy pandering to her radical right wing supporters all in the service of keeping her job rather than concentrate on good governance for the benefit of all Albertans. The only thing she is really good at is shooting her mouth off.
Smith is using Orange Man’s playbook perfectly. If facts are detrimental to ur agenda then lie, cheat and change the rules to appease ur cult followers in order to stay in power. She must be held accountable until the day her sorry ass is punted out of govt then she can go live in the USA. I’m hopeful her irrational and poorly thought out policies can be reversed once she’s history.
LOL! The fact you use “orange man” unironically tells me everything I need to know about your politics.
Wow, the Herald doesn’t even try to hide it’s political slant, does it? Or does it just not bother to fact check anything they publish? The only thing this opinion got correct is that other countries do have as much resources as Canada, but her point still stands. As for everything else, let’s see….
Misleading Claim About Alberta and Equalization: The article’s assertion that Alberta “repeatedly benefited from federal equalization programs” is false, as Alberta has not received equalization payments since the early 1960s due to its high fiscal capacity, even during oil and gas downturns.
Partially True but Exaggerated Claim About Federal Assistance: The article’s claim that Alberta benefited from federal support during COVID-19 and past economic busts is partially true (e.g., $1 billion Site Rehabilitation Program in 2020, $1.6 billion oil and gas support in 2018), but it exaggerates the extent and specificity of historical support, as evidence of significant targeted aid in prior decades (e.g., 1980s, 2008–09) is limited.
Out-of-Context Claim About the Tanker Ban: The article accurately notes that Bill C-48 (the tanker ban) only applies to crude oil tankers on British Columbia’s north coast, but it downplays Alberta’s legitimate grievance by omitting that the ban restricts potential export routes for Alberta’s oil, impacting market access despite the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
Misleading Dismissal of Federal Policy Impacts: The article’s claim that the narrative of Alberta being “uniquely punished” by federal policies “doesn’t hold up” is misleading, as policies like Bill C-69 (Impact Assessment Act) and carbon pricing have been cited by industry (e.g., Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) as increasing regulatory costs and deterring investment in Alberta’s oil sector.
Unsubstantiated Rejection of Investment Loss Figure: The article dismisses the premier’s $500 billion lost investment claim as “laughably disconnected” and “propaganda” without providing evidence to refute it, ignoring reports (e.g., Fraser Institute, 2019) estimating $200–$300 billion in foregone energy investments across Canada due to regulatory uncertainty and low oil prices from 2014–2019, which could plausibly scale higher over a broader timeframe.
Exaggerated Characterization of Investment Loss Causes: The article’s assertion that shelved oil projects were primarily due to global oil price collapses, corporate divestment, and market shifts—not federal policies—is partially true but oversimplifies, as federal regulations (e.g., Bill C-69, delays in pipeline approvals) have been documented as significant factors deterring investment alongside market conditions.
Overstated Claim About Alberta’s GDP Comparison: The article’s comparison of the $500 billion investment loss claim to Alberta’s $400 billion GDP is misleading, as investment losses are cumulative over time and not directly comparable to annual GDP, weakening the argument that the figure is implausible.
Speculative Claim About Separatism’s Feasibility: The article’s assertion that Alberta’s separation is “financially and politically suicidal” due to reliance on federal transfers and markets is speculative, as it ignores Alberta’s high per capita GDP ($77,500 in 2018 vs. $58,000 nationally) and resource wealth, though separation would indeed face significant economic and legal hurdles.
Unfair Generalization of Federal Benefits: The article’s claim that Alberta “benefits enormously” from federal transfers and interprovincial markets is partially true (e.g., $12 billion in COVID-19 subsidies), but it overstates Alberta’s reliance by ignoring its net contribution to federal finances ($324 billion since 2000, per Fairness Alberta), creating a one-sided portrayal.
Ad Hominem Attack on the Premier: The article’s characterization of the premier as “dangerously misinformed and ideologically driven” and relying on the “uneducated” is an ad hominem attack that undermines its credibility, as it focuses on personal insults rather than solely critiquing the speech’s content.
Exaggerated Critique of the Speech’s Scope: The article’s claim that the speech demonstrates a “lack of understanding of economics, history, federalism, and basic facts” is exaggerated, as some points (e.g., federal policy impacts on oil investment) have partial validity, and not all claims are wholly inaccurate or baseless.
Lack of Specific Evidence for Some Critiques: The article criticizes the premier’s claims (e.g., $500 billion investment loss, separatism) without citing specific data or studies to counter them, weakening its arguments by relying on assertions rather than evidence in several instances.
Selective Omission of Alberta’s Economic Context: The article omits Alberta’s economic challenges, such as the 2014 oil price collapse (oil prices fell from $100+/barrel to under $50) and 35,000 job losses by 2016, which provide context for the premier’s grievances about federal policies and investment losses.
Potential Political Bias in Tone: The article’s hyperbolic language (e.g., “nationalistic pandering,” “insult to intelligence,” “propaganda”) suggests a political bent, as it frames the premier’s speech as entirely misleading without acknowledging any valid concerns, such as Alberta’s high federal tax contributions or pipeline delays.
This is an EXCELLENT example of why trust in the media is at an all-time low. Media has become activism instead of news and so fervent that they don’t care about telling the truth.
Hey, I get where you’re coming from. There is a lot of bias in the media these days, and it’s frustrating when it feels like Alberta constantly gets blamed or misunderstood. You made some strong points, especially about equalization—Alberta hasn’t received those payments since the 1960s, so saying we “benefit” from them is just wrong. And yeah, we’ve contributed hundreds of billions to the rest of the country through taxes, even during tough times. That’s a fact a lot of people ignore.
You’re also right that federal policies like Bill C-69 and the carbon tax have made things harder for Alberta’s energy sector. Industry groups have said those policies scare off investors and add more red tape. It’s unfair to act like Alberta is just being dramatic or playing the victim when there are real consequences.
The tanker ban (Bill C-48) is another one. Sure, it only applies to part of B.C.’s coast, but it still limits Alberta’s ability to ship oil to global markets. That matters, especially when other provinces don’t face the same restrictions. So yeah, Alberta has legit reasons to be frustrated.
But I also think some of your points go a bit too far. Like, yes, Alberta didn’t get a huge bailout in past economic crashes, but it’s not like we got nothing. In 2018, there was a $1.6 billion support package for the oil sector, and during COVID, the federal government gave $1 billion for well clean-up projects. It’s not everything people wanted, but it’s still something.
About that $500 billion in lost investment—maybe that’s possible over a long period, but the number seems really high unless there’s solid proof. The Fraser Institute estimated around $200–$300 billion in lost investment across the whole country from 2014 to 2019. So it’s not a totally crazy number, but calling it fact without clear evidence weakens the argument.
Also, saying the media “doesn’t care about the truth” feels a bit extreme. I get being frustrated with biased reporting, but not all media is lying or trying to push an agenda. Some are just sloppy or opinionated. We should call that out, but still be fair.
And about Alberta separating from Canada—I know a lot of people are fed up and want more independence, and I totally get why. But saying separation is a simple fix is kind of unrealistic. Even if Alberta’s economy is strong, leaving Canada would be legally and financially super complicated. It’s not just about having money—it’s about trade, laws, and international relations too.
So yeah, your post brings up some real issues, and I agree with a lot of it. But I think the strongest arguments are the ones that stick to facts and don’t go too far into extremes. If we want people to take Alberta’s concerns seriously, we’ve gotta be accurate, balanced, and fair—even when others aren’t.