Premier Danielle Smith faces raucous, angry town hall on Alberta's coal policy
About 500 people, dressed in cowboy hats, belt buckles, and jeans, packed a community hall in Fort Macleod, Alta., for an event marked by heckling, competing applause and placards.
'If we are not prepared to look and find middle-ground solutions to allow for industries to proceed while reducing our environmental footprint, you're going to find that different industries become the next on the hit list,' Smith said through a chorus of protesting voices and verbal jabs.
'Banning industries is just not something we are going to do.'
The premier and her ministers of energy, environment and agriculture took questions and were shouted down on several occasions by attendees as they defended changes to the province's coal policy.
Story continues below advertisement
Many in the crowd held small placards reading 'lie' and 'false,' raising them each time they disagreed with a statement. There was a notable group that came in support of the province's coal policy, frequently applauding the ministers and shooting back at other crowd members. Many attendees carried notebooks and pens, keenly taking notes throughout.
2:27
Alberta Energy Regulator approves Grassy Mountain coal exploration
The town hall came weeks after the Alberta Energy Regulator, or AER, granted an Australia-based coal company permission to start a controversial coal exploration on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. Northback Holding Corp.'s project at Grassy Mountain was initially rejected in 2021 when a panel ruled that the likely environmental effects on fish and water quality outweighed the potential economic benefits.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Late last year, the project was exempted from the Alberta government's decision to ban open-pit coal mines because Northback's application was considered an 'advanced' proposal.
Story continues below advertisement
The issue has been polarizing in southern Alberta, where the debate has primarily revolved around the economic implications of development against environmental effects. A non-binding referendum in Crowsnest Pass saw 70 per cent of voters saying they'd support the nearby coal project.
Despite frequent pushback over the two-and-a-half-hour event, Smith rarely chose to get into back-and-forth discussions with attendees. She defended the province's approach to coal developments, pitching responsible development that prioritizes environmental standards.
Smith also frequently cited a lawsuit by five coal companies that say they're owed $15 billion by the province in lost revenues and sunk costs. She argued again on Wednesday that she had taxpayers in mind when the province lifted its moratorium on coal mining and development on the eastern slopes.
'If we do nothing, then we are told we'll likely lose those cases and have to pay ($15 billion).'
Story continues below advertisement
An energetic Brian Jean, the province's energy minister, frequently challenged the boisterous crowd and at times trotted offstage to hand his business card to those asking questions.
'I live in the oilsands. You can't tell me what I'm concerned about and what I'm not concerned about. I'm very concerned about our Earth and our planet,' he said.
Several questions returned to a new study by Alberta government scientists, yet to be peer reviewed, which recently said old coal mines on the eastern slopes are poisoning fish and any further coal mining there would result in 'population collapse' of fish species in a nearby lake.
Asked about the report, Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said the province is looking into the issue and is waiting for it to be confirmed by the peer-review process. She said further studies to be released later this year are being conducted.
'We want to understand what is happening there so that we can prevent that from happening in the future.'
The premier also jousted with protesters while speaking to reporters before the town hall. When a group gathered behind her and started yelling, she turned around and asked them to let her finish the interview.
'I'm looking for a little bit of courtesy,' she said.
The event was scheduled to last two hours, but Smith asked to take questions for an extra 30 minutes after the clock had run out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, July 26: ‘It would diminish all of us if we restrict immigration to the 'right people,' those whose previous advantages allow easy assimilation'
Re 'Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dismisses, demands apology for Jasper wildfire report' and 'Trump sues Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch for Epstein birthday letter coverage' (July 19): Two of three headlines on Page A3 feature democratically elected politicians complaining about or suing over reports which disagree with their particular narratives. Apparently the art of the deal and its followers do not abide any type of disagreement whatsoever. Interesting times. Vicki Nash-Moore Collingwood, Ont. Re 'A shrinking population is hardly what this country needs right now' (Opinion, July 19): Reducing immigration would not be walling ourselves off from the rest of humanity. I believe the root problem is declining birth rates, which is an affordability problem that should be fixed first. Using immigration to supplement declining population can create a never-ending cycle. New Canadians face the same economic issues such as access to homeownership, timely health care etc. Instead we should utilize a planned and selective approach to complement economic growth, fill gaps and ensure positive impacts for both existing and new Canadians. Joanne O'Hara Oakville, Ont. An ugly underlying aspect to the immigration discussion: It is clear to me that Pierre Poilievre's 'right people in the right numbers' is a Trump-like signal to his base for more white Christian immigrants and fewer refugees. We celebrate athletes such as Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, whose family comes from Antigua and Barbuda, and authors such as Esi Edugyan, whose parents are from Ghana. Yet both countries were threatened with a U.S. travel ban; not the right people in the view of the Trump administration. Most immigrants are not famous, nor are their children. The vast majority are hardworking, law-abiding citizens who love Canada because it was a refuge from hardship elsewhere. In that way, they are similar to those of us whose white forebears left Europe for better lives. It would diminish all of us if we restrict immigration to the 'right people,' those whose previous advantages allow easy assimilation. David Steele Saskatoon Re 'Follow through' (Letters, July 19): Lurking behind a letter-writer's comments about housing refugees only after all Canadians have homes first – 'cold is just as deadly as bombs' – is a surprising rationale, and a troubling one for me in the extreme. We thankfully live in a war-free country. Almost everyone knows where they will rest their heads at night, comparatively speaking. I am not unaware of our own homeless populations, a great tragedy. But remedies are sought and often found because we care. For refugees, trying to survive in a world that seeks to destroy their homes, their lives and their hopes of surviving with peace and optimism is a hell on Earth. As human beings – and Canadians – we have always been our brother's and sister's keepers, no matter where they live. Indifference to their needs and survival would diminish us all. Surely compassion is borderless. Joan McNamee Kamloops My group sponsored Syrian Kurd refugee families that arrived in 2016. When a young couple arrived, joining those already there, I shed tears as I saw 12 family members greeting the newcomers, hugging and kissing. I cried to myself thinking of my grandparents, who arrived by ship before the First World War, one or two at a time. They all fled the Czarist Russian Empire and built lives for themselves and their families in Montreal. Earlier this summer, my 'Syrians' invited us to celebrate the arrival of a newly arrived bride with about 30 other at a picnic in the park. It included youngsters born in Toronto. Like my Jewish grandparents, they had been most vulnerable and are now settled Canadians. Today, Palestinian Gazans are the most susceptible group. Canada recognized that, but gave a cynical invitation. It's never too late to do better. Allan Fox O. Ont, Toronto Re 'The Giller Prize was a rare CanLit success story. Now it might become a casualty of a foreign war' (Opinion, July 19): Giller Prize executive director Elana Rabinovitch has worked tirelessly to promote Canadian literature, for which we should all be grateful. It is suggested that authors such as Omar El Akkad and Madeleine Thien have 'betrayed' Ms. Rabinovich. How so? They won the Giller in 2021 and 2016, respectively. They could not have predicted Israel's ramped-up war efforts after Oct. 7, 2023. I find it an absurd notion that Giller winners who speak out against Israel should return their prize money. A literary prize is not hush money. Anne Hansen Victoria I would like to ask all the Giller winners who have been boycotting the prize because of its association with Scotiabank: Why, if the bank's money is so tainted, they have not returned their own prize money? I would also like to know how they justify depriving other Canadian writers of the chance to earn the same large amount of money and get the same boost in sales? The war in Gaza is still going on, so I don't know what this boycott has achieved except to defund the Giller and make all future sponsors think twice about funding a literary prize. It's a complete shame. Goldie Morgentaler Professor emerita, department of English, University of Lethbridge It would indeed be sad if the Giller Prize were to end. But any award that is heavily associated with and financed by a single corporation or wealthy individual is by definition going to be fraught. If an artist who has benefitted from this prize later finds that the entity behind it has been involved in activities they find morally repulsive, must they muzzle themselves? Why? I think the real lesson is that important events benefitting the arts cannot be sustainably supported by the private sector. In light of how much benefit comes to Canada from artistic endeavours such as strong Canadian literature, I think this is a clear case where Canada should step up to the plate to support the continuation of the Giller. Paul Rasmussen Victoria Re 'I'm not offended when people praise my spoken English' (Opinion, July 19): I also believe in having 'a bit more faith in the better side of human nature' when it comes to clearing up potential cultural misunderstandings. That being said, context is everything. In 2018, Donald Trump's infamous and profane remarks on nations in the African continent provides background to his remarks on Liberian President Joseph Boakai's 'good English.' This was not an innocent remark; instead, it was offensive and disrespectful, as made clear in his previous comment on Africa and therefore Africans in general. Pointe finale. Veena Dwivedi St. Catharines, Ont. Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Warpath to profitability?
Opinion The defence industry is often overlooked by investors. It's perceived as boring compared with technology or worse, it's just an unethical way to put profit in the portfolio. Since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, however, the defence industry has drawn significant investor interest. Notably, the perception has changed. That includes some of those who might have felt investing in defence was distasteful; they now see it as a needed buttress against rising authoritarianism. Of course, another shift is financial — based on the forecast injection of hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending by NATO members. Pexels NATO members (including Canada) are forecast to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in additional annual spending in defence in the years to come. Canada alone is expected to increase military spending about $70 billion annually to meet its most recent defence commitment of five per cent of gross domestic product. The big question for many intrigued investors is whether they've already missed the warship. 'Our view is that type of information gets incorporated into market prices really quickly,' says Ben Felix, chief investment officer with PWL Capital in Ottawa. 'The implication of that is by the time you read about it in a Free Press article, any advantage that you may have got by investing in that theme is already gone.' That said, the defence industry landscape and recent performance are still of interest to inquisitive investors who might consider putting their money to work when prices pull back periodically. For the time being, however, many defence company share prices have hit lofty heights, including a handful of Canadian firms such as satellite technology company MDA Space Ltd. Its share price is up more than 50 per cent year to date. As well, aerospace company Bombardier's share price 'has almost doubled in recent months, so obviously, all of the talk that has been going on is certainly helping,' says Brian Donovan, New Brunswick-based president of provider of valuation models for investors. 'It tells you that there is an interest shift into this space.' StockCalc tracks performance of thousands of North American equities, including about eight Canadian firms with defence industry revenues. One even has a footprint in Winnipeg: Magellan Aerospace Corp., which makes components for military aircraft. Its share price is up more than 80 per cent YTD. If those gains sound lofty, consider some firms listed in the United States and Europe. Notably, artificial intelligence firm Palantir is up 106 per cent this year. Even more impressive, its share price is up nearly 1,600 per cent over the last five years. A key driver is its defence contracts with the U.S. and partnerships with other technology and manufacturing companies involved in defence. That includes L3 Harris Technology, which, like Palantir, operates in many industries. Its drone technology business is a big defence revenue driver. (That said, its share price growth YTD is much less than other defence stocks.) In Europe, the most notable defence growth story is manufacturing conglomerate Rheinmetall AG. Among the many defence technologies it manufactures are Challenger and Leopard tanks. Its share price is up about 200 per cent YTD, and more than 2,000 per cent in the last five years. The big driver is Germany planning to spend more than a trillion dollars on defence in the next five years. That investors are now turning onto the defence sector is understandable (given the headlines) and somewhat ironic at the same time because it has not been a lacklustre industry for long-term performance. Publicly traded companies involved in the U.S. defence industry have collectively provided returns on an annual basis that have outpaced the S&P 500, says Scott Sacknoff, manager of the SPADE Defense Index in Washington, D.C. 'There is a long history of defence outperforming.' And it very well could continue to outperform, given the U.S. defence budget is expected to surpass US$1 trillion annually for the first time in history, he adds. If anyone has deep knowledge of the defence sector, it's Sacknoff. The SPADE Index, which he manages, consists of leading U.S.-based defence companies and has outperformed the S&P 500 by roughly more than 1,000 basis points (or 100 percentage points) over the last 25 years. Yet until Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine in 2022, defence was a profitable but sleepy market corner. The explosion in defence spending has changed that, leading to greater investment and even a rush of new investment products, notably exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Prior to 2022, investors largely had three ETFs to choose from, including one of the longest running: Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF. For investors looking for exposure, the Invesco product is worth a look. Since launching in 2005, it has had steady growth. Investment data firm Morningstar data shows US$10,000 invested in 2005 would be worth nearly US$120,000 today. In turn, the ETF has Morningstar's highest rating. Sacknoff notes the ETF's performance is driven by the underlying SPADE index, which uses a modified market cap weighting to address the downsides of passive investing that lead to over-concentration in overvalued stocks. 'In simplest terms, this involves ensuring that large companies aren't too large, and small companies aren't too small.' He adds the index's annualized return over 15 years is 17 per cent. 'You have never lost money in any product tracking our index if you invested and held onto it for at least three years.' Yet one might ask, would that still hold true today? 'The big question is whether earnings and revenues will catch up to the high valuations,' Sacknoff says. Only time will tell. Yet not all companies on the index are surging in price, including Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-35 fighter that Canada and other NATO countries have contracts to buy. Its share price is actually down slightly this year. Wednesdays A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom. What's more, U.S. President Donald Trump's scattershot economic policy is likely to lead to downside market volatility, presenting buying opportunities for defence companies. Yet their long-term tailwind is likely not going away soon. For the time being, however, this high-flying sector seems more of a minefield than a warpath to profitability. Joel Schlesinger is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist joelschles@
Globe and Mail
5 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
United Rentals Reports Strong Q2 2025 Results
United Rentals ( (URI)) has released its Q2 earnings. Here is a breakdown of the information United Rentals presented to its investors. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. United Rentals, Inc. is the world's largest equipment rental company, operating across North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, providing a wide range of rental equipment to construction, industrial, and other sectors. In its latest earnings report, United Rentals announced a strong performance for the second quarter of 2025, with total revenue reaching $3.943 billion and a net income of $622 million. The company also raised its full-year guidance and increased its planned share repurchases by $400 million to $1.9 billion. Key financial highlights include a 6.2% year-over-year increase in rental revenue, a 3.3% rise in fleet productivity, and an adjusted EBITDA of $1.810 billion. The company's specialty rentals segment saw a significant 14.0% revenue growth, while the general rentals segment increased by 2.7%. Despite a slight decrease in net income margin due to inflation and cost variability, United Rentals maintained a solid financial position with a net leverage ratio of 1.8x and total liquidity of $2.996 billion. Looking ahead, United Rentals remains optimistic about its growth prospects, driven by strong customer demand and strategic capital allocation, as it continues to focus on delivering value to shareholders through profitable growth and enhanced free cash flow.
