American Thought Leaders - Premier Danielle Smith on CCP Subversion: We Shouldn’t Be ‘Playing Into Our Own Demise’

Episode Date: May 15, 2024

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2“I think we now have to make sure that we understand what an adversary China is, and make sure that we’re not playing into our own demise,” says Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.She has taken a strong stance on the communist China threat, and she has also been going against the grain in Canada with her policies on energy, COVID mandates, the drug crisis, and “gender-affirming care.”In this episode, I had a chance to do a deep dive with her about her thinking around these policies.“I want Alberta to just be this bastion of freedom and liberty,” Ms. Smith says. “I want to make sure we preserve it.”Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

I think we now have to make sure that we understand what an adversary China is and make sure that we're not playing into our own demise. In this episode, I'm sitting down with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She's been going against the grain in Canada with her policies on the drug crisis, gender-affirming care, net zero, and the communist China threat. And today I had a chance to do a deep dive with her about her thinking around all these policies. I want Alberta to just be this bastion of freedom and liberty, a place where people from all over the world can come here

and find a place and know that they're going to be successful. I want to make sure we preserve it. Premier Danielle Smith, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Nice to talk to you. And of course, it's American in the broader sense here, I'm saying it. I'm actually someone that lived in Alberta and Edmonton for quite a number of years. It's very close to me.

Something that even today some Canadians don't fully realize is how rich in oil Alberta is. People call it the Texas of Canada or something like this. And recently, Canada signed on to these COP28 rules to diversify away from fossil fuels by the end of 2050. What does this mean for Alberta? Well, I can tell you that one of the things maybe Americans might not know is that we have a bit of a different structure where the provinces in our country own and control most of the natural resource wealth. We have about over 80% of the resource wealth that is owned by Alberta. And so we have a lot of decision making power over our production levels, getting it to market. I don't think that that's necessarily at odds with the idea of reducing emissions. And that's what I've always said, is we're not transitioning out of oil and gas production.

We are transitioning out of emissions. And so when we start thinking of ways that we can use natural gas differently, whether it's with net zero petrochemicals production, or whether it is with hydrogen, or whether it is with ammonia. Those are the kind of things that we're looking at on the natural gas side. And then when it comes to our heavy oil, which is highly valued because it can be turned into so many products. I think people may not know that a barrel of oil now produces 6,000 different products, including increasingly construction materials like asphalt or carbon nanofiber, which can be used for construction.

So as we start developing ways to decarbonize the production stream and find more and more uses for our product that is non-combustion, I think we can have both. I think we can increase production and also reduce emissions. Fascinating. Could you give me a sense of how much oil is estimated to be in Alberta in the oil sands? It's massive. When I was down at Sierra Week in Houston, I felt like we had to reintroduce Alberta to the rest of the world. Because often when I hear the Americans worried about where they're going to get their next supply from, they talk about Iraq or they talk about Venezuela because they also have heavy product. And I just say, well, we've already got the trade ties. We've already got the pipeline access. We are already the largest exporter to the Americans by a country mile.

We export double the amount that Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Mexico combined give to the United States. And so when I try to put it into context, we have a recoverable reserves number in Alberta of about 200 billion barrels. Well, how big is that? Well, it's about five times larger than all of America's recoverable reserves combined. So when we say we are here, we are a friend, we believe in Fortress North America, we believe that we can help with energy security, with affordability, as well as reduce emissions, we want to be the first option. We want to make sure that Americans look to us first rather than last. Well, because net zero, like this concept

with many people I've interviewed on the show is typically associated with this idea of degrowth, because ultimately, the way that technology works, that to achieve the kinds of goals which are expected at the moment would require reduction in industrial production. Do you view it that way? Oh, absolutely not. I mean, when I look at what is happening in the world, we also have a dual obligation to ensure that every citizen has the same quality of life and standard of living as we do. And energy is essential to that. Having a robust, cheap supply of energy, as well as a solid food security, a supply of low-cost food, those are sort of the two essentials to any nation's ability to grow. And so when I look at where the fact that we have somewhere in the order of three to five billion people that need to be brought up to the standard of livings that we are able to enjoy in North

America, I think that that's going to be our real challenge is how do we bring everybody up to be able to use more energy at the same time as reducing emissions? And we're not going to be able to use more energy at the same time as reducing emissions. And we're not going to be able to do that simply off wind and solar and batteries. We have to use every single type of fuel in order to be able to do that. So if we're serious about ending global poverty, we should be talking in those terms. And we should be talking in terms of emissions reduction, not ending industrial development. I want to jump through a whole bunch of different items that you're interested in. You ran against mandates related to various COVID policies, specifically vaccines. And so just tell me about your overall vision and why the mandate thing became something that you were willing to become an outlier on.

Well, I believe in choice in all things. And medical choice, what you put into your body, that has got to be an essential. You shouldn't have governments dictating that. I personally am vaccinated, but I know that there are others who, for a variety of reasons, have made different choices. And we have to be able to trust people that, in combination with their discussion with their doctors, know what's best for themselves. It created a lot of social harm, a lot of social division. We had families that were breaking up over this. We had people who weren't able to go see their kids' hockey games, people who weren't able to travel, people who were fired from their

jobs. And that is not the kind of society that we want. We have worked so hard over the last 30 years to end discrimination, and I just couldn't tolerate creating a new form of discrimination. That's part of the reason why I ran on choice, and I continue to make sure that people know that I will support them in the choice that they make for themselves and their family. One of the things a lot of people I speak with were worried about is the return to these shelter-in-place type policies, should there be another big scare, perhaps overblown scare. How do you view those policies? beginning because they decided to take a different path. They essentially became the control group that we can compare everybody else's performance on. I think the only other jurisdictions that were as liberal as Sweden were perhaps Florida and South Dakota. And what you have to do is look at those jurisdictions and see, did they have any worse outcomes? And sadly, what happens with viruses is that they do end up sweeping through a population. They do end up hitting those who are the most vulnerable. And you can take a different approach in how you protect your

most vulnerable without harming the young in this case, which I think happened in a lot of jurisdictions. And so I've been supportive of the approach of the Great Barrington Declaration and Jay Bhattacharya on how you would be able to target your approach to those who have comorbidities, those who are seniors, those who are most vulnerable. Encourage people, if they're sick, stay home. Encourage people as well, wash their hands, do all of the basic hygiene. And for those who choose to, to also get vaccinated. So I think that that's a far better approach, because what we're dealing with now is the consequences of isolation.

And I know that there were doctors who were warning of this, that if you shut down society and people lose their jobs, the financial hardship associated with that, it can create problems within families, it can cause family breakdown, It can create issues with kids with isolation. We're beginning to see that with self-harm and suicide and overdose rates. You get undiagnosed diseases because people are afraid to go to see a regular doctor. So by the time they're diagnosed with a heart condition or cancer, oftentimes it's too late to do anything about it. Those are harms too. And so we have to make sure that by taking an action to protect one vulnerable group of individuals that we're not inadvertently causing harm to the rest of society. And I think having a more surgical approach, a more targeted approach

next time, that makes far more sense. One area where you're starting to, oh, I see you're taking a bit of a different track than a lot of other jurisdictions in Canada. This realm of harm, term is harm reduction, but basically ways of dealing with addiction, specifically fentanyl is also in Canada as much as it's in the U.S. I wanted to get you to speak to that a little bit. It is something that's personal to me. Last year, in the middle of last year, I had an old friend basically be shot by a stray bullet in Toronto around one of these harm reduction sites, which end up becoming open-air drug markets. People would describe them that way. But you're taking a bit of a different track. So what are you doing? We are pioneering what we're calling the Alberta model,

and it's a recovery-oriented system of care. Our starting point is that there's no such thing as a safe supply of fentanyl or heroin in any of its derivative forms or crystal meth. Those are not safe drugs. And I think we do more harm to young people in trying to convey that there is such a thing as a safe supply. There just isn't. These are dangerous, dangerous drugs. And we also believe that recovery is possible. Some of these, and also not just possible, it's the most likely outcome. We have tens of thousands of people who've struggled with addiction and have managed to recover. And they go on to be advocates and peer supporters to others to see them through that journey. And so that's the approach that we take is we don't give up on people.

We want to give every person every avenue to get into recovery, recognizing it doesn't always work the first time out. But we don't give up on people. We give them an opportunity to try a second or a third time. So we're building recovery communities so that people can go into a treatment facility for a month, six months, or up to a year, get the recovery capital built around them, get job skills, learn how to take care of themselves, learn how to make their bed and cook their food, get them connected to a job, get them connected to their family in a community, get them on the drug replacement therapy that they might need, whether it's Suboxone or Sublocate, and get them back with a new start in life. And then on the other side, we also recognize that there's some historical things that have needed to be done to ensure that people are supported to get to that point.

So we still have the harm reduction. We still have the virtual opioid dependency program. We still have pain medication management clinics. But we believe that we've got to lead with what the outcome is, be aspirational. We believe we shouldn't be leading with recovery. And so that's the approach we're taking. We're also extending that into our corrections facilities. There's a lot of folks who've had some pretty hard lives and have never had this kind of support. And so we have three corrections facilities where we offer the same kind of intensive therapy. And the kind of support. And so we have three corrections facilities where we offer the

same kind of intensive therapy. And the kind of reaction that we're getting is that no one's ever invested in many of these folks that way. And they're delighted that we were giving them another alternative and another path. Those who visited these facilities to watch group therapy, it's very emotional. And so we know that we're on the right track. We know that we're saving lives this way. The third aspect would be these encampments. They are not just tents. They're not homes for people. They are gang-operated drug markets. Gangs have been in there.

They threaten people. They burn down some of these tents. People have been burned alive. They store drugs. They store guns. They've trafficked young people. A young girl, we heard a story of her being trafficked in these tents. We can't allow that kind of criminality. So we took an aggressive approach in January to clear or nine different facilities to get the support they needed. We put them in one spot. So we have over 900 people that we've been able to connect with over 3,000 different services. And I think each of them are part of different stages in their

journey to recovery. But that's going to be an essential part of how we deal with this in every city going forward. So the thing that I've heard universally from people who have been on the show, who work with people who have gotten themselves off the street or participated in that process, or themselves had gotten themselves off the street, is that someone came in and did an intervention and somehow incentivized them to change, to get off the addiction track, as opposed to the other model with the harm reduction model, which is just, I will provide you with a safe way of taking the drug, whatever it is that you're addicted to. This is what I'm trying to get at. Is that incentive structure being created and driven forward? Well, I can tell you, you might want to

next interview my chief of staff, Marshall Smith, because he is the creator of this recovery-oriented system of care. He was on the street for four and a half years, and he realized that's exactly what you needed to do. Somebody said to him, you're either going to jail for a long time or you're going into treatment. And he chose treatment, and he's been paying it forward ever since. Well, that's frankly fantastic to hear. I've been following for quite some time, Chinese Communist Party infiltration into Canada. And recently, there's lots of reports about China being the biggest influencer, I guess, on the political scene, even intervening in elections, arguably didn't actually make a difference, but still tried very hard. At least that's the

way that I read the report. And you actually were, I'll tell you what our headline was, and it was kind of bizarre to read it almost, that you're requesting that CSIS, CSIS being of course, the equivalent of the basically the security intelligence service for Canada, just for the folks that aren't Canadian that are watching, that CSIS somehow wasn't allowed to brief you or wouldn't be allowed to brief you on foreign interference and is only allowed to be federal politicians and folks. Can you explain this to me? And also, it's good that you're

requesting that they be allowed to brief you. Well, I wish I could explain this to me? And also, it's good that you're requesting that they be allowed to brief you. Well, I wish I could explain it to you because it's baffling to me because, again, in our system of government, we have federal level of government and provincial level of government, and we have heads of power that are determined by the Constitution. Public safety is one of the things that also falls under our jurisdiction. So I was concerned because there was a Chinese spy balloon that flew right across Alberta. And I wanted to know, who was this? What were they trying to do? And that's when I first discovered that CSIS was only able to give us unclassified information. They couldn't give us any further. And then, of course, we've had the foreign interference hearings that have happened.

And essentially, they've said that they had essentially one reporting structure, reporting up to the politicians. And if the politicians they reported to chose not to pass it on, then none of us knew who was at risk. I still don't know if there has been any foreign interference in Alberta elections, even though CSIS has publicly said that we're probably a big target because of how we are situated in the world and our vast resource well. But these are things that we need to know. If we're going to be able to make sure our law enforcement knows what to look for, and that our politicians are aware, especially if anyone is trying to cultivate a relationship with them for nefarious

purposes, then we need to be aware of what that information is. So I've called for that. I know other premiers have called for that. And it looks to me like they're changing the legislation to be able to allow for it. I think it's vitally important. There's a lot of bad actors in the world. And if we're going to be increasingly targeted by people with bad intention to create social disorder, then we need to understand what's behind all of that. Decades of our own reporting, my own conversations with Michel Junokatsuya, former head of CSIS Asia Pacific, who has said that, for example, every prime minister in Canada has been influenced by the CCP in some way. Our own work has shown that the CCP

influences at every level of government, all the way from municipal. And in fact, come to think of it, I do remember there was, I believe, a Vancouver mayor who did get some kind of briefing from CSIS about attempts to influence him. So I still don't fully understand how this works. I hope it gets solved so that, you know, everybody can get their briefings. Well, it's interesting, because I was just recently at an event put on by our Business Council of Canada, and had an opportunity to talk with Robert Lighthizer, who, as you know, was the chief trade negotiator under the previous administration. We all went around the table asking, you know, what is the biggest threat that you fear in the world?

And he said China and the influence of China. I think there was a bit of a naive attitude on the part of Canada for some time. And, you know, admittedly, it seemed plausible that if you invest in China and help them to become more economically free and have more free enterprise, that that will result in more political freedom. Well, it hasn't turned out that way at all. And in fact, what we're seeing instead is that the Chinese cheap production has hollowed out our manufacturing sector, not just in the United States, but also in Canada.

And when COVID hit, we saw the vulnerabilities that were a result of that. So I think we now have to make sure that we understand what an adversary China is and make sure that we're not playing into our own demise. And so that's a strong message that I think the Americans have been advancing. I think our former Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, understood that as well. But I think it's become very, very clear that in recent times that that is absolutely the case. You know, Robert Lighthizer, I think, was one of the very few people, by the way, you know, a guest of the show, and we discussed exactly these kinds of issues. But he was perhaps one of the few people that actually was able to exert leverage

against communist China in an effective way. It's a language that many have argued on this show, and I would argue, too, is the only language that is really understood over there. Platitudes don't really work. Well, I have to say, I understand the American position that if you want to do trade with us, buy as much stuff from us as we buy from you. That's a pretty simple message. And Canada and the US have a very good relationship in that regard. We're not quite equivalent. Sometimes it depends on what the value of oil and gas is, because that can determine who ends up with the deficit and who ends up with the surplus. But we're pretty close. We're both about $450 billion that we buy and sell to each other. But you look

around the world with the American trading partners, and it's certainly not the case with China or some of the other players. So I understand where the Americans are going. And the way I want Canada to position ourselves is that America is our greatest friend and ally and neighbor. We've got to make that relationship be our priority. We have other relationships we need to have in the world, but we can't do anything that interferes with that incredibly important relationship in North American energy security. We both need it. Premier Smith, as we finish up, I wanted to talk a little bit about you taking a position on gender ideology. Recently, as I'm sure you're aware, the CAS report came out in the UK, which basically explains how this whole approach to medicine isn't really based on medicine or science. I'm curious if you feel vindicated for the position you've taken.

And if you're thinking of taking that approach further, just give me a sense of that. Well, I've been concerned for some time about what is happening in this field and what I perceive as a lack of rigor in the science and in the medical practice. I've been watching what's happened in European countries around the world as they've started making modifications to their approach. And you see it in the Netherlands where they've done longitudinal studies. And of course, now you see with the CAS report. What I have observed from my takeaway from the CAS report is that a lot of young people have a number of comorbidities, mental illness, developmental delays, maybe body hatred for any number of reasons, and maybe a previous sexual assault like there's all kinds of reasons why

a young person might be struggling and just affirming one particular path to dealing with it is not it's not treating that whole child so I think that's what came out of the cast report is you've got to be very careful very deliberate make sure that it's a multidisciplinary team a doctor a psychologist that there is what the family psychologist, that there is, that the family is involved, that there is a period of time to give sort of that watchful waiting, I think is the term for it, because many of these kids come to terms with the issues that they're struggling with. And the ones who want to go on to transition, that's a decision I believe should be made as an adult. There are serious consequences. We don't have good research on what the long-term effect of puberty blockers are. We don't have long-term

research on the number of people who transition and then feel regret and transition back. And so I think that it's this absence of data that has me very concerned. We don't want any young person making a decision that might affect their fertility prematurely. These are not decisions that can be made by 10 and 11-year-olds. We think that you have to be more mature to be able to make these decisions. That being said, when somebody has made that decision, we want to be supportive of it too. We offer support for surgeries. I'm looking at recruiting doctors who can specialize in post-surgical care as well as specialize in being able to provide hormone therapy support for life.

We want to make sure people have proper counseling and support as well through the trials that they're going to have throughout their lifetime on this. So I think we want to be compassionate about this. But also in this case, being compassionate is making sure that young children are not making decisions that are premature before they're ready to understand the consequences. You have had this approach of making Alberta more autonomous or trying to make Alberta more autonomous. That's kind of a theme. As we actually finish up, just tell me a tiny bit about your vision for the future of Alberta. I just think Alberta is the best place on the planet. I've always felt that way, that there's something really unique about Alberta. And maybe it's

because we're a young jurisdiction. We didn't get established until 1905. And it was a hard scrubbing in the first number of decades in this province. We attracted people from all over the world. And so we really are a place that has reached out to the world and said, come here, because you can practice your faith in your own way. You can be successful in whatever you choose to do. You can start a business, you can employ people. And when you do, you can pay back to your community. And so that is the culture of Alberta. And it's so special and unique that I want to make sure we preserve it. I want Alberta to just be this bastion of freedom and liberty, a place where people from all over the world can come here and find a place and know that they're going to be successful. And we're seeing that. I mean, in the last year, we've had more people come to this province than at any time in our history.

We're now diversifying our economy so that we have all kinds of ways for people to be able to contribute, not just oil and gas, but green energy, as well as the venture capital world, as well as the agriculture world, film and television. Anyone can come here and I think be successful. So that's part of the reason why I just don't want to see any of this erode. We are an aspirational people and this is an aspirational place, and our best years are ahead of us. That's what I hope people will see. Well, Premier Danielle Smith, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show. My pleasure talking with you. Thank you all for joining Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.