Response to U.S. tariffs: Premier Smith

Premier Danielle Smith issued a statement following the announcement of tariffs on Canadian goods beginning Tuesday:

“I am disappointed with U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to place tariffs on all Canadian goods. This decision will harm Canadians and Americans alike and strain the important relationship and alliance between our two nations.

“Alberta will do everything in its power to convince the U.S. President and Congress, as well as the American people, to reverse this mutually destructive policy.

“We note the reduced 10 per cent tariff for Canadian energy. That is partially a recognition of the advocacy undertaken by our government and industry to the U.S. Administration. We’ve pointed outthe substantial wealth created in the U.S. by American companies and tens of thousands of American workers who upgrade and refine approximately $100 billion of Canadian crude into $300 billion of product sold all over the world by those same U.S. companies.

“It is also worth noting that if oil and gas exports are excluded, the United States actually sells more to Canada than Canada sells to the U.S. As I’ve stated to every American policymaker I’ve met with in these past months, Canada buys more from the U.S. than does any country on earth – more than the U.K., France, Germany, Italy and Vietnam combined. There is, therefore, no economic justification for tariffs imposed on any Canadian goods.

“Alberta will continue diplomatic efforts in the United States to persuade the U.S. President, lawmakers, administration officials and the American people to lift all tariffs on Canadian goods as soon as possible and to repair our relationship with the United States. I encourage all premiers and federal officials to do the same, especially as the effects of these tariffs begin to take their toll south of the border. Americans need to understand the detrimental consequences of this policy decision.

“Alberta will also work collaboratively with the federal government and other provinces on a proportionate response to the imposed U.S. tariffs through the strategic use of Canadian import tariffs on U.S. goods that are more easily purchased from Canada and non-U.S. suppliers. This will minimize costs to Canadian consumers while creating maximum impact south of the border. All funds raised from such import tariffs should go directly to benefit the Canadians most harmed by the imposed U.S. tariffs.

“Alberta will, however, continue to strenuously oppose any effort to ban exports to the U.S. or to tax our own people and businesses on goods leaving Canada for the United States. Such tactics would hurt Canadians far more than Americans.

“We also continue Alberta’s call for the appointment of a border czar to coordinate the securing of our border against illegal migrants and drugs moving in both directions, and to achieve our nation’s two per cent of GDP NATO commitment by 2027. These things should be done for the safety of all Canadians regardless of our trade dispute with the United States

“Despite the disappointment of today’s decision there is also an incredible opportunity before us as a nation. Canada can and must come together in an unprecedented effort to preserve the livelihoods and futures of our people and expand our political and trade relationships across the globe. We can no longer afford to be so heavily reliant on one primary customer. We must stop limiting our prosperity and inflicting economic wounds on ourselves.

“Rather, we must unleash the true economic potential of our country, which possesses more wealth and natural resources than any other nation on earth.

“To this end, Alberta calls on the federal government and our fellow provinces to immediately commence a national effort to fast track and build oil and gas pipelines to the east and west coasts of Canada, construct multiple LNG terminals on each coast, increase internal refining capacity, unleash the development of critical minerals, lower taxes, reduce red tape, tear down interprovincial trade barriers and re-empower provinces to develop our unique economies without constant federal interference and imposition of anti-resource development laws.

“Our province and our nation can overcome the formidable economic challenges ahead. But we can only do so if we start acting like a healthy and functional country that supports every province to export their best resources and products to world markets, thereby achieving their unique potential. By so doing, Canada can become one of the most prosperous and powerful nations on earth. Alberta stands ready to do our part if this true Team Canada approach is taken.”

Related Topics:Alberta AlbertaResponseToUSTariffs DanielleSmithTrumpTariffs

Up Next

Trudeau “Played Doctor” With Children

Don't Miss

Alberta government should rely on dividends—not ‘political will’—to grow Heritage Fund

Government of Alberta

This is a news release from the Government of Alberta.

Follow Author

Growing Alberta’s fresh food future

Alberta / 2 weeks ago

Alberta introducing three “all-season resort areas” to provide more summer activities in Alberta’s mountain parks

Alberta / 3 weeks ago

New era of police accountability

Alberta

Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works

Published on December 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).

The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.

Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.

As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.

Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).

The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.

Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.

Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.

The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance

Published on December 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail, Mackenzie Moir and Lauren Asaad

In October, Alberta’s provincial government announced forthcoming legislative changes that will allow patients to pay out-of-pocket for any diagnostic test they want, and without a physician referral. The policy, according to the Smith government, is designed to help improve the availability of preventative care and increase testing capacity by attracting additional private sector investment in diagnostic technology and facilities.

Unsurprisingly, the policy has attracted Ottawa’s attention, with discussions now taking place around the details of the proposed changes and whether this proposal is deemed to be in line with the Canada Health Act (CHA) and the federal government’s interpretations. A determination that it is not, will have both political consequences by being labeled “non-compliant” and financial consequences for the province through reductions to its Canada Health Transfer (CHT) in coming years.

This raises an interesting question: While the ultimate decision rests with Ottawa, does the Smith government’s new policy comply with the literal text of the CHA and the revised rules released in written federal interpretations?

According to the CHA, when a patient pays out of pocket for a medically necessary and insured physician or hospital (including diagnostic procedures) service, the federal health minister shall reduce the CHT on a dollar-for-dollar basis matching the amount charged to patients. In 2018, Ottawa introduced the Diagnostic Services Policy (DSP), which clarified that the insured status of a diagnostic service does not change when it’s offered inside a private clinic as opposed to a hospital. As a result, any levying of patient charges for medically necessary diagnostic tests are considered a violation of the CHA.

Ottawa has been no slouch in wielding this new policy, deducting some $76.5 million from transfers to seven provinces in 2023 and another $72.4 million in 2024. Deductions for Alberta, based on Health Canada’s estimates of patient charges, totaled some $34 million over those two years.

Alberta has been paid back some of those dollars under the new Reimbursement Program introduced in 2018, which created a pathway for provinces to be paid back some or all of the transfers previously withheld on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Ottawa for CHA infractions. The Reimbursement Program requires provinces to resolve the circumstances which led to patient charges for medically necessary services, including filing a Reimbursement Action Plan for doing so developed in concert with Health Canada. In total, Alberta was reimbursed $20.5 million after Health Canada determined the provincial government had “successfully” implemented elements of its approved plan.

Perhaps in response to the risk of further deductions, or taking a lesson from the Reimbursement Action Plan accepted by Health Canada, the province has gone out of its way to make clear that these new privately funded scans will be self-referred, that any patient paying for tests privately will be reimbursed if that test reveals a serious or life-threatening condition, and that physician referred tests will continue to be provided within the public system and be given priority in both public and private facilities.

Indeed, the provincial government has stated they do not expect to lose additional federal health care transfers under this new policy, based on their success in arguing back previous deductions.

This is where language matters: Health Canada in their latest CHA annual report specifically states the “medical necessity” of any diagnostic test is “determined when a patient receives a referral or requisition from a medical practitioner.” According to the logic of Ottawa’s own stated policy, an unreferred test should, in theory, be no longer considered one that is medically necessary or needs to be insured and thus could be paid for privately.

It would appear then that allowing private purchase of services not referred by physicians does pass the written standard for CHA compliance, including compliance with the latest federal interpretation for diagnostic services.

But of course, there is no actual certainty here. The federal government of the day maintains sole and final authority for interpretation of the CHA and is free to revise and adjust interpretations at any time it sees fit in response to provincial health policy innovations. So while the letter of the CHA appears to have been met, there is still a very real possibility that Alberta will be found to have violated the Act and its interpretations regardless.

In the end, no one really knows with any certainty if a policy change will be deemed by Ottawa to run afoul of the CHA. On the one hand, the provincial government seems to have set the rules around private purchase deliberately and narrowly to avoid a clear violation of federal requirements as they are currently written. On the other hand, Health Canada’s attention has been aroused and they are now “engaging” with officials from Alberta to “better understand” the new policy, leaving open the possibility that the rules of the game may change once again. And even then, a decision that the policy is permissible today is not permanent and can be reversed by the federal government tomorrow if its interpretive whims shift again.

The sad reality of the provincial-federal health-care relationship in Canada is that it has no fixed rules. Indeed, it may be pointless to ask whether a policy will be CHA compliant before Ottawa decides whether or not it is. But it can be said, at least for now, that the Smith government’s new privately paid diagnostic testing policy appears to have met the currently written standard for CHA compliance.