Ottawa’s Failed Panic and Empty Threats Vindicate Danielle Smith’s Leadership

In short, given the state manipulation of media and the self-inflicted amnesia of the age, I would like to document some of what the progressive politicians wanted to do, and what they said, to remind us of the shallow leadership in the country, and to say what the mainstream media isn’t going to say. Danielle Smith’s calm, clear-eyed approach was prudent leadership. The rest was a useless political spectacle geared exclusively to improve the electoral fortunes of the ruling Party in Ottawa. The strategy was devised to serve the interests of the federal Liberal Party, not the interests of Canadians.

When the Storm Hit: Carney’s Rhetoric Without Results

The shock arrived in January, though the first stab was delivered to Justin the previous Fall when he visited Trump in Mar-a-Lago on November 29th. Donald Trump, newly back in the White House, announced a raft of tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum and threatened levies on agriculture and energy-related products. The move struck at the very architecture of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), the framework meant to stabilize continental trade. Canada sends three-quarters of its exports to the United States; the relationship is not optional or trivial; it is crucial. This dependency deepened during the Trudeau years, notably in his refusal to approve infrastructure for selling Canadian energy overseas and in declining pleas from Europeans to sell them natural gas. Ottawa likes to talk about diversification, but when three in four dollars of export income depend on one customer, the arithmetic speaks for itself.

Carney, still in the honeymoon phase of his premiership, treated the shock as an opportunity to prove his campaign rhetoric. During debates, he had cast himself as the lone Canadian able to face down Trump, a Trump-whisperer of sorts, boasting of his international experience as governor of the Bank of England and promising to “crush” the Americans in trade negotiations. When the cameras turned to him, he reached for the hyperbolic language of battle.

On March 27, 2025, Prime Minister Carney told reporters: “Nothing is off the table regarding possible countermeasures.” Carney declared on that same day that “the era of close economic integration and security cooperation with the United States is over,” following an announcement of sweeping U.S. auto tariffs. This was a radical policy shift in the history of the country, an announcement made without any debate in the public square or in Parliament. The longstanding Canada–U.S. partnership built on deep integration was no longer intact, and there would be “no turning back” from this shift. Many chose to celebrate this announcement without considering the consequences.

Four days later, on March 31, Carney expanded the message in a more impassioned speech: “We won’t back down. We will respond forcefully. Nothing is off the table to defend our workers and our country.” The environmentalist woke banker was now the defender of Canada’s working class, the same working class he declared seditious for questioning government policy during the truckers’ protest.

The language was now definitive, dramatic, and even intoxicating to some Canadians. Ottawa reporters applauded the elbows-up posture. But it was rhetoric without a plan.

Danielle Smith’s Steady Course: Strategy Over Spectacle

Smith’s view of the crisis was rooted not in theatre but in facts. Alberta exports over 3.3 million barrels of oil a day to the United States. That crude feeds refineries in the Midwest and the Gulf Coast, which in turn supply gasoline and diesel back into Canadian markets. Oil is not simply Alberta’s business; it is the circulatory system of the North American economy. To threaten to cut it off would be to shoot ourselves in the leg to prove a point.

Smith said as much at press conferences in mid-January. She warned that if Ottawa tried to embargo energy exports as retaliation, the fallout would be national: “Refineries in Ontario and Quebec, industries across the country, all depend on Alberta’s oil. Empty threats may make headlines, but they won’t keep Canadians working.”

She was clear that oil must not become a weapon. She was also pointing out the crucial strategic reality that, citing oil flows to the US, one would have to cut oil flows to Eastern Canadian markets from Alberta, an absurd way to hurt Canada’s largest market for the sake of hurting Americans. Who negotiates by putting a loaded weapon to their own head?

If Trump was enlisting chaos, Danielle Smith understood that bringing more chaos into the equation would only serve the interests of those weaponizing chaos: “Our energy exports are a source of stability, not leverage.”

Smith’s rationale ran deeper than provincial parochialism; it rested on the realistic understanding that energy flows sustain industries coast-to-coast. Instead of using oil as a cudgel, she pressed for engagement. Her trip to Mar-a-Lago, facilitated by Kevin O’Leary, was ridiculed by critics as social climbing. But Smith’s purpose was straightforward: to remind Trump and his circle that Alberta’s oil kept America’s economy moving, and that undermining that relationship would hurt both sides.

It was not glamorous politics. It did not satisfy the simplistic appetite for “elbows up” or the primal need to see Canada throw punches. But it was prudent. It sought to preserve what mattered most: stability, credibility, and the livelihoods tied to cross-border trade.

Nenshi’s Alarmism: From Existential Threats to Boycott Appeal

But not all Alberta politicians are endowed with the common sense and good judgment that Premier Smith showed in this trade conflict with the US. If Carney set the hyperbolic tone in Ottawa, Naheed Nenshi amplified it from Edmonton. His rhetoric soared to near-apocalyptic levels when he told reporters the US tariffs represented the possibility of demise: “These tariffs are an existential threat to Canada’s economy and way of life.”

Such language is typically reserved for nuclear war or famine, not tariff skirmishes. Nenshi displayed no understanding of how Canadian tariffs on the US would hurt Canadian workers the most. By invoking existential peril, Nenshi helped to transform a serious but manageable dispute into an exaggerated drama of survival. The effect was to raise anxiety, to send his constituents into spastic bouts, but not to offer solutions.

In his typical boisterous way, He went further in mocking Smith personally about the premier’s Mar-a-Lago outreach: “It was just a balls-and-parties tour.”

This was not a critique; it was juvenile taunting. It sought only to diminish Smith by ridicule. Beyond that, he urged Albertans to “buy Canadian-made goods” in defiance of “American economic aggression.” This had populist resonance—shop patriotically, hurt the Americans where it counts. But its undertone was darker. It cast American producers as enemies rather than partners, sliding toward the kind of cultural hostility that corrodes continental goodwill. That, and the fact that it is the wrong strategy: Canada can never become wealthier and better only consuming what it produces.

Together with Carney and others, Nenshi’s words painted a picture of politics as theatre: existential peril, carnival mockery, economic nationalism. It was louder than Smith’s steady counsel, but it was also shallower. What it offered in emotional release, it lacked in constructive substance.

Lukaszuk’s Overheated Rebuke: “Shameful” and “Without Shame”

Thomas Lukaszuk, Alberta’s deputy premier in the most corrupt government in Alberta’s history, joined the chorus with his own brand of vitriol. He lambasted Smith’s Mar-a-Lago trip as deceitful: “Ms. Smith is without shame… it was probably inevitable she would show up at the side of Mr. Trump.”

He accused her of disguising the visit as a private vacation, calling it “shameful” and suggesting it was “perhaps an intentional attempt to deceive.” He demanded transparency: if she met with Trump and O’Leary, why was it not cleared with federal or provincial officials?

Lukaszuk’s barbs were not a critique of trade policy; they were an indictment of Smith’s character, almost suggesting Smith was treasonous. By casting her outreach as dishonesty, he implied she was not merely mistaken but disloyal. The attack was moralistic, not analytic. And it was hyperbolic: to suggest that a premier speaking to a U.S. president about Alberta’s energy could be “without shame” is to invert priorities and to show a warped understanding of political activity from executive places. Where Smith sought stability, Lukaszuk indulged outrage. Where she made arguments, he delivered invective. Smith prevailed.

The Federal Failure: Loud Words, No Leverage

The accurate measure of Ottawa’s approach lies in the success of its outcomes. In January, Carney promised “maximum impact” and “nothing off the table.” By March, the Americans had not budged. By summer, Carney was already preparing to climb down.

On August 22, 2025, during a press conference announcing a rollback of Canada’s retaliatory tariffs, Carney said: “Canada and the U.S. have now re-established free trade for the vast majority of our goods.”

The announcement was spun as a win—“we have restored free trade for the vast majority of goods.” But in fact, it was a concession. Trump had not withdrawn his supposedly existence-threatening tariffs. But Canada had withdrawn its retaliation. Ottawa had failed to secure a deal. The country was left where Smith had said it should remain: keep the arteries of trade open, defend a few vital sectors, and avoid damaging our own consumers.

The gap between promise and performance was humiliating. Carney had campaigned as the expert negotiator who alone could handle Trump. He had threatened “crush force” against the Americans, to deliver maximum pain. In the end, he managed a quiet surrender, hoping Canadians would mistake retreat for strategy. Trump, for his part, gloated. Canada, he said, had “come to its senses.” He took credit for Carney’s electoral success. The bluster of winter had dissolved into a whimper by summer.

Prime Minister Carney now claims he obtained the best deal of any country for Canada, but that is not true. Canada has exactly what Mexico has, except that Canada’s oil has a lower US tariff rate imposed because Danielle Smith negotiated it.

Who Showed Judgment

Strip away the noise, and the contrast is stark. Danielle Smith, much maligned, displayed judgment. She prioritized stability, preserved Alberta’s interests, and in doing so also sought to protect the national interest. She spoke frankly about the costs of empty, performative retaliation to the national economy. From the start, she cautioned against “empty threats.” She argued that weaponizing oil would trigger a unity crisis. She maintained that the priority was to keep trade stable, not to win headlines with elbows-up theatrics. Ottawa mocked her, pundits accused her of sabotage, Nenshi ridiculed her as unserious, and Lukaszuk branded her “shameful.” Yet months later, Ottawa adopted precisely the framework she had outlined.

Carney offered bluster, then quietly retreated. Nenshi offered mockery and alarms. Lukaszuk offered moral outrage. All three contributed to a theatre of hysteria that eroded Canada’s credibility abroad and coarsened discourse at home in ways that are damaging to the political fabric of the Canadian community.

Smith showed an understanding of how present action shapes future positions. Standing against the tide, she offered thoughtful solutions. Not loud, not glamorous—but steady, serious, and correct. She was punished for exposing the nonsensical nature of their exaggerated position. And in that punishment lies her vindication.

A Debt of Apology

What Alberta and its premier received instead was abuse. Smith was called a traitor, accused of siding with Trump, and branded “shameful.” People took to social media to insult Albertans, suggesting that it was no surprise the premier was a traitor because Albertans are traitors. She was ridiculed for rationally trying diplomacy. The verdict of hindsight is plain: it is Ottawa and its allies who owe Albertans an apology. NDP leaders like Lukaszuk and Nenshi should also apologize to the premier.

An apology, not because Smith needs it personally, but because Canadians should demand politics grounded in sound judgment, not hysteria. They deserve leaders who resist fearmongering, not indulge it. They deserve leadership that unites people, not divides them. They deserve policies that promote friendship with neighbouring nations, not encourage atavistic hatreds. They deserve debate that clarifies, not insults.

Premier Danielle Smith was right. The others were loud. And when the record is written, it will not be the theatre that matters, but the steadiness that kept Alberta and Canada from greater harm.

Share

For the full experience, and to help us bring you more quality research and commentary, please upgrade your subscription.