Fact Check: Alberta should not be forced to follow the rest of Canada into a damaging trade war with the U.S.

Premier Danielle Smith has opposed using energy as a weapon against the United States and argued Canada should seek a mutually beneficial trade agreement instead of escalating retaliation.

 

As Canada's trade confrontation with the United States continues, Albertans have good reason to question why their economic interests should be sacrificed for retaliation strategies designed around the priorities of other provinces.

The numbers demonstrate just how different Alberta's relationship with the U.S. is.

In 2025, Alberta exported roughly $152 billion worth of goods to the U.S., representing nearly 86% of all Alberta international merchandise exports. Alberta was Canada's second-largest provincial exporter to the U.S., behind only Ontario.

Energy dominates that relationship. About $125 billion, or more than 82%, of Alberta's U.S.-bound exports were energy products.

That makes the U.S. not merely another customer for Alberta. It is overwhelmingly Alberta's largest export market, geographically close and connected to the province through decades of pipelines, refineries, power infrastructure and integrated supply chains.

Yet Ottawa's trade policy is national, meaning Alberta doesn't control negotiations over the commercial relationship that matters most to its economy.

That's particularly important because the current tariff fight does not affect every province equally.

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe estimated that only about 1.2% of Alberta's exports would be caught by the latest round of 50% U.S. tariffs, compared with 13.7% in British Columbia, 10.8% in Ontario and 9% in Quebec. A more detailed analysis put Alberta's exposure at just 0.8%.

Despite this, Alberta can still be caught in retaliatory measures imposed by Ottawa in response to problems concentrated elsewhere.

Alberta has already pursued a different strategy. Premier Danielle Smith has opposed using energy as a weapon against the United States and argued Canada should seek a mutually beneficial trade agreement instead of escalating retaliation. Alberta and Saskatchewan also broke with other provinces by restoring American liquor to store shelves. 

There is a legitimate argument for diversifying Alberta's export markets. The Trans Mountain expansion has already helped increase Alberta energy shipments to Asia. But diversification doesn't change the reality that the United States remains, by an enormous margin, Alberta's most important customer.

Help fund our independent reporting on Alberta's independence movement!

Rebel News is stepping up where the legacy media have failed. We've assigned Tamara Lich to follow the Alberta independence movement as it unfolds — not from a government-funded newsroom in Toronto, but on the ground with the people actually shaping it. We don’t take a cent of the Liberals' media bailouts, which means we rely entirely on viewers like you to make this journalism possible. If you want Albertans to have a fair voice in a debate the establishment would rather crush, please chip in today and help us keep this reporting going strong.

Amount
$

Donation frequency

Sheila Gunn Reid

Chief Reporter

Sheila Gunn Reid is the Editor-in-Chief, Alberta Bureau Chief, member of the board of directors, and host of The Gunn Show at Rebel News. Sheila also serves as President of the Independent Press Gallery of Canada. A mother of three and longtime conservative activist, Sheila is the author of bestselling books, including her most recent release, Independence Blueprint: What Alberta Can Learn From Quebec.

https://mybook.to/sheila

COMMENTS

Showing 1 Comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Bernhard Jatzeck
    commented 2026-08-13 13:39:15 -0400
    Alberta has constantly heard that it’s oil were “bad” and “evil”. Recently, it was suggested that it become a convenient weapon to use against the U. S., courtesy of Doug Ford. Suddenly, our oil became “Canada’s” oil. (I think we used to have a prime minister who had the same opinion some 50 years ago…..)