Connect with us

Economy

Canada is not a serious country… Danielle Smith

Published

14 minute read

From Danielle Smith

I read an infographic that said Canada has bought $13 billion worth of petroleum products from Russia since 2000 – we buy from them at a rate of $550 million  a year. What the hell are we doing?

The situation for Ukraine looks very grave indeed. Most commentators thought Vladimir Putin was going to “liberate” the two Russia friendly break off republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. What a surprise to the world to find Russian soldiers in Kyiv among other incursions.

It is pretty clear the Russian leader intends to take all of Ukraine.

But we also must not be naïve about Putin’s aspirations. A Polish friend of mine – who remembers watching Russian tanks roll into her town outside her street when she was seven years old – is under no illusions about how far Putin intends to go.

She fully expects Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Kazakhstan and possibly Moldova to be next. She believes Putin wants to assemble the Soviet Union 2.0, with the ultimate aim of controlling the energy supply to the rest of the world.

So how does this play out?

Just like you I’ve been trying to sort through the conflicting media coverage to find out what is really going on. If indeed there are Ukraine substates that genuinely want to be independent, I don’t have a particular problem with that. As I said in a Locals post, post WWII the powers that be made a lot of blunders redrawing the map of Europe and the Middle East, cramming people together under a national flag even if they hated each other, so perhaps some aspirations for independence are legitimate. But it’s clear that Putin’s aspiration goes far beyond Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. It appears now that he wants the whole thing. But why?

First off, though it’s sad to say, there hasn’t been much honest reporting about Ukraine and Russia starting in the Trump years so almost everything you read will be through the lens of people who hate Trump (who clearly understood Putin’s strength and saw no need to antagonize him) and Biden (whose family had strange dealings in Ukraine no one wants to talk about).

In addition there is so much propaganda floating around the web I’d be reluctant to retweet any stories of “bravery” unless they’ve been verified. Here’s a good summary of the lies so far: The Ghost of Kiev, the woman with the sunflower seeds, footage of things being shot down or blown up – so far most of these stories are outright falsehoods or images from video games or prior conflicts. The “Russian Warship Go Fuck Yourself” holdouts was partly true: yes they said it, but they didn’t die in a missile attack. They were all apprehended and taken alive.

So know that you have to read everything knowing that the writer is trying to manipulate you. I’m just trying to figure out what is actually going on. It’s not easy.

To that end…

The mainstream view as reported on BBC, is that Russia feels threatened by a modern Ukraine and irrationally believes it has been taken over by extremists and Nazis. I guess calling one’s political opponents “Nazis” is the new all-purpose smear being used by Russian Presidents and Canadian Prime Ministers alike to justify war measures. In any case, this analysis left me unsatisfied as it seemed a bit shallow and one-sided like so much of MSM these days.

Social media isn’t doing much better, and the commentariat seems to think this is the time to practice their best pop culture zingers. It’s kind of humiliating to read this piece that calls out the Harry Potter references, the self-care links and the demands to “deplatform” Russia: “If the West saw Ukraine and its cause as truly important, something worth paying a price to assist, they would sanction Russia’s energy sector. But they do not (even the Globalist American Empire must sometimes face reality). So instead, we get a parade of symbolic sanctions, passive-aggressive gestures of anger and hostility. In fact, the tactics the GAE uses against Russia — social ostracisim, deplatforming, and performative public condemnation — are the same feminine tools that it uses domestically to ruins the lives of people who use a politically incorrect word or donate to the wrong protest.” Ouch.

Here’s a video from a podcaster imbedded in Kyiv who says openly, “you’ll probably think I’m a Russian stooge” so he may indeed be a Russian stooge, but he explains why he thinks Russia (so far) has been restrained in its attack. He believes Ukrainians are fleeing because Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is endangering them, by putting Kalashnikovs in the hands of untrained civilians who are going to be killed when confronted by professional Russian soldiers, and mandating military service for every man aged 18 to 60. He does not believe the Russians intend to cause mass casualties or destruction, but that they will kill if someone is pointing a gun at them, which will allow more reports depicting Putin’s viciousness.

He also explains how important Kyiv is to the Russian foundational story. As far as Putin is concerned, Ukraine is Russia, and he expected to be treated as a liberator when he arrived. He also outlined the different military tactics of Russia to explain why the West is saying that Russia is losing. When the US enters a country they do scorched earth and blow everything up – roads, bridges, electrical grids, water plants and so on. The fact that Putin is not doing that is being perceived as weakness. But if Putin wants Ukraine to be part of Russia permanently, it would make no sense to destroy everything. That doesn’t engender good feelings. Putin wants a puppet regime in Ukraine friendly to Russia’s interests – he doesn’t want to raze the joint or blow it smithereens.

Finally, this piece helped put a lot into perspective for me. “Ukraine’s Deadly Gamble” by Lee Smith has the ring of truth about it. He depicts it thus: “…(T)he Ukrainians made a geopolitical blunder that statesmen will study for years to come: A buffer state had staked its future on a distant power that had simply seen it as an instrument to annoy its powerful neighbor with no attachment to any larger strategic concept that it was willing to support.” They were a pawn in the game to help discredit Trump with the Russian collusion story, then when Trump started poking around to find out what the Bidens were up to in Ukraine, they played a willing role to aid his impeachment. Now they find out the Americans just aren’t that into them after all.

In the end, mid-size powers sleeping next to giants have to realize that their continued ability to remain independent is measured by whether they are perceived as antagonistic to the giant’s interests. If the situation was reversed – if Canada started cozying up to Russia and helping to sabotage US presidents to curry favour with Russia – I don’t think it would go well for us either. Maybe not full scale invasion, but the Americans hold life or death power over our economy so it wouldn’t be a wise move. Sad that regular citizens become the collateral damage in the decisions of their elected leaders. But that’s why elections matter.

If Canada was a serious grown-up country with a serious grown-up leader we’d be able to say “we can help” without being laughed off the world stage. We can help, in a very practical way. We can help wean the world off Russian oil and natural gas. We could ask Quebec to stop thinking only about itself for a change and reverse its announced ban on oil and natural gas extraction. Trudeau could declare multiple projects in the global interest and work with First Nations partners to complete Transmountain Pipeline and build Northern Gateway, work with Biden to build Keystone XL and with the provinces of QB and NB to build Energy East. He would use his powers under the Constitution to tell Quebec they can not block LNG Export from Saguenay, and he’d post a sentry of protectors for Coastal Gas Link to make sure it gets completed too.But look at this silliness: “despite the fact that 18 LNG export terminals have been proposed in Canada over the years, and 24 long-term LNG export licenses have been granted since 2011, a grand total of zero have been built.” We have failed the world with Trudeau’s anti-carbon-dioxide obsession. Let’s not forget it.

Canada is key to energy security and affordability for North America and our European allies, and we could hit Russia where it hurts. If we wanted to be a meaningful player on the international stage we would embrace it.

Instead we have a federal Environment Minister who made his name scaling the CN Tower and Ralph Klein’s house to oppose fossil fuels, and we’ve joined the Build Back Better brigade pretending the world can survive on wind turbines and solar panels alone.

Canada is not a serious place and our friends in Eastern Europe are now paying the price for it. Such a tragedy.

 

For more from Daniel Smith

Locals.com: Join the Daily Dialogue Locals.com – go to https://daniellesmith.locals.com (Warning: it is a US platform and charges its subscription fees in US dollars. They charge a modest fee to join to keep the trolls away.) I keep it as low as they allow at $2 a month or you can $20 for an annual subscription.

Book Me: I am happy to do moderating and speaking engagements. My fee is $500. You can book me by emailing [email protected].

Donate Online: If you like what you see and want me to continue doing this, please feel free to donate through my website: https://daniellesmith.ca/support

Donate by Etransfer: If you prefer to etransfer, send to [email protected]

Donate by Mail: Send to the PO Box below.

Subscribe to my Free Weekly Newsletter: Subscribe to this newsletter by going online to http://daniellesmith.ca. I’ve been told by more than a few people that the newsletter is ending up blocked by your mail system. I’ll make it password protected to cut down on the trolls.

See Previous Newsletters Online: Go to https://daniellesmith.ca/newsletterarchives and enter password Liberty.

Donate

What’s New?

The Danielle Smith Podcast is now available.

 

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

Economy

What the Data Shows About the New Canada-Alberta Pipeline Opportunity

Published on

From Energy Now

By Canada Powered by Women

Canada has entered a new period of energy cooperation, marking one of the biggest shifts in federal–provincial alignment on energy priorities in years.


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


Last week as Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that outlines how both governments will approach a potential pipeline to British Columbia’s coast.

The agreement, which has been described as a “new starting point” after years of tension, lays the groundwork for a privately financed pipeline while also linking this commitment to a broader set of infrastructure priorities across oil and gas, LNG, renewables, critical minerals and electricity transmission.

It also sets out how a privately financed project, moving roughly 300,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil to global markets each day, will be reviewed.

Now that the announcement is behind us, attention has turned to how (or if) a pipeline is going to get built.

Alberta has set out its ambitionsBritish Columbia has its conditions, and the federal government has its own expectations. Together, these positions are shaping what some are calling a “grand bargain” which will be made up of trade-offs.

Trade-offs are not a new concept for the engaged women that Canada Powered by Women (CPW) represents, as they’ve been showing up in our research for several years now. And anyone who reads us also knows we like to look at what the data says.

According to new polling from the Angus Reid Institute, a clear majority of Canadians support a pipeline, with national backing above 60 per cent. And there’s strong support for the pipeline among those in B.C. This aligns with other emerging data points that show Canadians are looking for practical solutions that strengthen affordability and long-term reliability.

By the numbers:

• 60 per cent of Canadians support the pipeline concept, while 25 per cent oppose it.
• 53 per cent of people support in British Columbia, compared to 37 percent opposed.
• 74 per cent of people in Alberta and Saskatchewan support the pipeline.

Our research shows the same trends.

A large majority (85 per cent) of engaged women agree that building pipelines and refining capacity within the country should be prioritized. They favour policies that will progress stability, affordability and long-term economic opportunity.

A key feature of the MOU is the expectation of Indigenous ownership and benefit sharing, which Alberta and B.C. governments identify as essential, and which aligns with public opinion. As of right now, Indigenous groups remain split on support for a pipeline.

The agreement also signals that changes to the federal Oil Tanker Moratorium Act may need to be considered. The moratorium, in place since 2019, is designed to limit large tanker traffic on the North Coast of B.C. because of navigation risks in narrow channels and the need to protect sensitive coastal ecosystems.

Those in favour of the pipeline point to this as a critical barrier to moving Canadian oil to international markets.

Polling from the Angus Reid Institute shows that 47 per cent of Canadians believe the moratorium could be modified or repealed if stronger safety measures are in place. Again, we come back to trade-offs.

The MOU is a starting point and does not replace consultation, environmental review or provincial alignment. These steps are still required before any project can advance. Taken together, the agreement and the data show broad support for strengthening Canada’s energy options.

This will be an issue that engaged women are no doubt going to watch, and the conversation is likely to move from ideas to discussing what trade-offs can be made to bring this opportunity to life.

Continue Reading

Business

US Energy Secretary says price of energy determined by politicians and policies

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

During the latest marathon cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright made news when he told President Donald Trump that “The biggest determinant of the price of energy is politicians, political leaders, and polices — that’s what drives energy prices.”

He’s right about that, and it is why the back-and-forth struggle over federal energy and climate policy plays such a key role in America’s economy and society. Just 10 months into this second Trump presidency, the administration’s policies are already having a profound impact, both at home and abroad.

While the rapid expansion of AI datacenters over the past year is currently being blamed by many for driving up electric costs, power bills were skyrocketing long before that big tech boom began, driven in large part by the policies of the Obama and Biden administration designed to regulate and subsidize an energy transition into reality. As I’ve pointed out here in the past, driving up the costs of all forms of energy to encourage conservation is a central objective of the climate alarm-driven transition, and that part of the green agenda has been highly effective.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

President Trump, Wright, and other key appointees like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have moved aggressively throughout 2025 to repeal much of that onerous regulatory agenda. The GOP congressional majorities succeeded in phasing out Biden’s costly green energy subsidies as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law on July 4. As the federal regulatory structure eases and subsidy costs diminish, it is reasonable to expect a gradual easing of electricity and other energy prices.

This year’s fading out of public fear over climate change and its attendant fright narrative spells bad news for the climate alarm movement. The resulting cracks in the green facade have manifested rapidly in recent weeks.

Climate-focused conflict groups that rely on public fears to drive donations have fallen on hard times. According to a report in the New York Times, the Sierra Club has lost 60 percent of the membership it reported in 2019 and the group’s management team has fallen into infighting over elements of the group’s agenda. Greenpeace is struggling just to stay afloat after losing a huge court judgment for defaming pipeline company Energy Transfer during its efforts to stop the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

350.org, an advocacy group founded by Bill McKibben, shut down its U.S. operations in November amid funding woes that had forced planned 25 percent budget cuts for 2025 and 2026. Employees at EDF voted to form their own union after the group went through several rounds of budget cuts and layoffs in recent months.

The fading of climate fears in turn caused the ESG management and investing fad to also fall out of favor, leading to a flood of companies backtracking on green investments and climate commitments. The Net Zero Banking Alliance disbanded after most of America’s big banks – Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and others – chose to drop out of its membership.

The EV industry is also struggling. As the Trump White House moves to repeal Biden-era auto mileage requirements, Ford Motor Company is preparing to shut down production of its vaunted F-150 Lightning electric pickup, and Stellantis cancelled plans to roll out a full-size EV truck of its own. Overall EV sales in the U.S. collapsed in October and November following the repeal of the $7,500 per car IRA subsidy effective Sept 30.

The administration’s policy actions have already ended any new leasing for costly and unneeded offshore wind projects in federal waters and have forced the suspension or abandonment of several projects that were already moving ahead. Capital has continued to flow into the solar industry, but even that industry’s ability to expand seems likely to fade once the federal subsidies are fully repealed at the end of 2027.

Truly, public policy matters where energy is concerned. It drives corporate strategies, capital investments, resource development and movement, and ultimately influences the cost of energy in all its forms and products. The speed at which Trump and his key appointees have driven this principle home since Jan. 20 has been truly stunning.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X