Is Danielle Smith an Untrustworthy, Bad Faith Actor?

Why It Matters

Smith’s apparent bad‑faith tactics jeopardize Alberta’s credibility in federal negotiations and undermine Canada’s climate commitments, raising political and investment risks nationwide.

Key Takeaways

• Smith reneged on carbon‑price agreement within days of signing.
• Government follows three‑part agenda: shrink public sector, boost executive, aid fossil fuels.
• Critics label Smith’s tactics as cynical, akin to Trump’s “ungoverning.”
• Federal leaders feel pressured, offering concessions despite Smith’s bad‑faith moves.
• “Authoritarian libertarianism” describes paradox of libertarian rhetoric with muscular state control.

Summary

The interview examines whether Alberta Premier Danielle Smith can be deemed a bad‑faith actor after she signed a federal‑provincial memorandum on carbon pricing and pipeline development, then swiftly undermined its key provisions. Bob Weber argues that Smith’s rapid introduction of carbon‑market credits effectively reduced the industrial carbon price from the promised $130 per tonne to under $20, signaling a deliberate breach of the agreement. The discussion expands to a broader three‑part agenda driving the United Conservative Party: diminishing the size and independence of public institutions, consolidating power in the executive branch, and creating a favorable environment for the fossil‑fuel sector. This pattern mirrors the “ungoverning” strategy identified in the Trump administration, where the state’s role is reshaped to serve private interests rather than public welfare. Specific examples cited include the new teacher‑oversight legislation, attacks on legal and medical professions, and the manipulation of the carbon market that remains invisible to the public. Smith’s negotiations with Prime Minister Mark Carney on a $35‑50 billion pipeline and related investments are portrayed as leveraging minimal federal concessions for maximal provincial gain. The implications are significant: federal‑provincial trust erodes, climate‑policy credibility suffers, and investors face heightened regulatory uncertainty. The episode underscores a shift toward “authoritarian libertarianism,” where libertarian rhetoric coexists with a muscular, agenda‑driven state apparatus.

Original Description

Danielle Smith signs deals with Ottawa—and then almost immediately undermines them. Is that hardball politics… or something more serious?

In this interview, Markham Hislop sits down with veteran energy journalist Bob Weber to unpack a growing pattern in Alberta politics: agreements with the Govt of Canada on carbon pricing and methane emissions---and others--- that begin to unravel within days.

The conversation goes deeper than one policy dispute. It explores whether this is “bad faith” negotiation—or a broader governing strategy rooted in ideology, power concentration, and alignment with the fossil fuel industry.

Weber offers a different lens: what looks like bad faith may actually be consistent behaviour driven by three priorities—shrinking public institutions, centralizing executive power, and prioritizing oil and gas development above all else.

Together, they examine:

* The Canada-Alberta MOU and why its core commitments may already be compromised

* How carbon markets can be weakened without changing headline prices

* Whether methane regulations will meet federal equivalency standards

* The rise of “authoritarian libertarianism” in North American politics

* Why separatist rhetoric changes the stakes of federal-provincial negotiations

This isn’t just about Alberta. It’s about trust, governance, and whether Canada’s federal system can function when one player keeps pushing to the edge. Watch the full conversation and decide for yourself: is this strategy, cynicism—or bad faith?

#DanielleSmith #AlbertaPolitics #CanadaEnergy #EnergyPolicy #CarbonPricing #Methane #CanadianPolitics #OilAndGas #EnergyTransition #MarkCarney #Federalism