AB NDP’s Rakhi Pancholi dismantles Danielle Smith’s referendum claims

by David J. Climenhaga

February 23, 2026
RABBLE.CA

UCP strategists must be thanking their Judeo-Christian deity she’s not the leader of the Opposition!

Alberta NDP Deputy Leader Rakhi Pancholi as she eviscerated Premier Danielle Smith’s claims and policies with forensic precision during a news conference Friday.

 Credit: Alberta NDP


With Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi nowhere to be found Friday morning, Rakhi Pancholi took up the task of eviscerating the long list of intentionally confusing referendum questions announced by Premier Danielle Smith in her prime-time televised message the day before, not to mention the way the premier coddles separatists, her dog whistling about immigration, and her refusal to take responsibility for her government’s fiscal mismanagement.

“Cut the bullshit! Call the election!” Pancholi began her Friday morning news conference, cutting right to the chase.

“Danielle Smith and the UCP did not campaign on nine new referendum questions,” the Opposition party’s deputy leader immediately continued. “They do not have a mandate from Albertans for this. Not on separatism, not on pulling out of the CPP, not on breaching the Charter rights of Albertans, not on coal mining in the Eastern Slopes, and not on bringing in two-tier health care!

“The premier is trying to distract us ahead of a UCP budget that will contain billions of dollars in deficits,” Pancholi rolled on. “She’s trying to distract us from separatism – which she put on the agenda and is already putting our province at risk. The premier is blaming oil prices and immigration for her poor planning and financial mismanagement.” (And, as ever, she’s also blaming long gone former prime minister Justin Trudeau, it must be added.)

After that, it just got better. Pancholi never faltered in her forensic deconstruction of the house of cards Smith has built, starting with the premier’s plan for nine murkily worded referenda next October 19, the point of which appears to be to create a constitutional crisis in Canada that will help break up the federation.

Over the next half hour, Pancholi repeated the mild profanity she started with two more times – just to make sure everyone was awake and understood that she, at least, had had enough of Smith’s constant nonsense, and that political discourse in Alberta is shifting whether the UCP likes it or not.

One imagines the post-adolescent pundits at this province’s plethora of well-funded right-wing propaganda platforms were sharpening their crayons to accuse Pancholi of having a potty mouth. It won’t work. She sounded impassioned, not profane. And Albertans who listen to her presentation will want to hear more.

On the low oil prices the premier blames for Thursday’s sad-sack deficit budget: “Oil production is hitting record levels, and resource revenue from the past five years is the highest it has been in decades. Only the UCP can blow a resource boom!”

On the premier’s pivot to condemning immigration from demanding it: “The hypocrisy on immigration is unreal! Less than two years ago, in 2024, Danielle Smith herself asked Justin Trudeau to increase immigration levels because Alberta wanted more than what Ottawa was offering. Also in 2024, she stated publicly that she wanted to double Alberta’s population to 10 million people, grow cities like Red Deer 10 times their size to one million, all while promoting the ‘Alberta is Calling’ campaign asking people from Canada and around the world to make Alberta their home.

“She did all this without a thought or plan for how to create the jobs, build the houses, schools and hospitals that we already needed!”

And now, Pancholi continued, the premier wants us to blame immigrants and asylum seekers and to send us to the polls to vote on a raft of referenda to enable such a campaign pulled right from the pages of Donald Trump’s agenda. “Again, what a load of absolute bullshit! She’s trying to make people angry about things that she can’t even back up with facts. She’s stoking the flames and raising the temperature. This is the opposite of leadership!”

Pancholi’s performance made an interesting contrast to the premier’s “media availability” the same day, during which Smith was by turns shouty, defensive, cranky and smug, all the while offering a master class in gaslighting. Just listening to Smith was exhausting. More than a whiff of panic was in the air.

But the UCP, after all, is a party that has made a cult of avoiding deficits at any cost. Now they’re going to bring down a budget expected to have a deficit of at least $6 billion to $8 billion because … what? They haven’t figured out the price of oil fluctuates?

Once again, Alberta is reduced to playing to poor little rich kid of Confederation, only this time with a separatist problem of its own creation to complicate matters. UCP fiscal incompetence will be revealed in all its glory Thursday, and blaming Trudeau and asylum seekers isn’t going to cut the mustard with anybody except the UCP’s MAGA base.

“The UCP has been in power for six years now,” explained Pancholi. “This is the premier’s fourth budget and will now be her second big deficit. Tell me how this is not a disaster in managing Alberta’s finances!”

When a reporter suggested it might be dangerous for the NDP to demand an election – after all, they might just get their wish – Pancholi said confidently she was willing to take the risk. As she put it in her formal remarks: Danielle Smith “wants to champion direct democracy? We have a direct democracy, and it’s called a general election. Call it!”

Packed Emergency Rooms, crowded classrooms, a million Albertans without a family doctor, no caps on sky-high insurance rates, soaring utility bills, the lowest minimum wage in Canada? “Where’s the premier’s leadership on any of this?”

So, concluded Pancholi, who ran for the NDP leadership in 2024 but dropped out in favour of Nenshi when his victory was clearly inevitable: “Cut the bullshit, premier! Stop with the distractions, and if you’re so convinced this is what Albertans want, call an election and let Albertans decide.”

It was a delight to see Pancholi tear into the UCP with an aggressive spirit that has been largely missing from Alberta politics on the Opposition side since Jason Kenney defeated Rachel Notley’s one-term government in April 2019.

This is what NDP members thought they were voting for when they chose Nenshi as leader in June 2024. Instead, it has been almost completely absent since Nenshi took over.

And where was Nenshi Thursday night, immediately after Smith’s remarks, or Friday morning for the news conference Pancholi handled so well? The deputy leader assured reporters that her leader had just returned from a well-deserved vacation and would reappear soon. I’m sure the UCP was relieved.

Danielle Smith remains a talented communicator skilled at setting political narratives before the Opposition gets out of their seats. She is not to be underestimated.

Pancholi, a lawyer by profession, seems to have the ability to destroy an overconfident and glib witness with forensic precision. With 20/20 hindsight, we can see that she might have been the perfect opponent for a premier with such a casual relationship with the truth and such a destructive ideology.

We can only hope that Nenshi has the sense to set her loose on the premier while he practices politics in full sentences, or whatever his passive strategy is called.

Alberta politics


David J. Climenhaga

David Climenhaga is a journalist and trade union communicator who has worked in senior writing and editing positions with the Globe and Mail and the Calgary Herald. He left journalism after the strike... More by David J. Climenhaga

Avi Lewis answers rabble’s NDP leadership questionnaire

February 23, 2026

rabble.ca

rabble is asking each of the candidates for the NDP leadership seven questions on party strategy, Indigenous issues, dealing with Donald Trump and more. Here are the answers from Avi Lewis.

Avi Lewis at a campaign event. Credit: Avi Lewis / X

Please tell our readers three policies you would champion as NDP leader.

As NDP leader, I would champion the creation of public options in every sector of our economy where the market is failing. While one-in-four Canadians live in food-insecure households and food bank usage skyrockets, Galen Weston, the owner of Loblaws, is worth $18 billion. This is classic market failure, and shows who benefits and who suffers in our current economy, where every sector is dominated by a handful of colluding corporations. It’s why our campaign is proposing a public option for cell phones, internet, postal banking, and groceries. Think Costco run as a public service – a public network of 50 grocery stores across the country would offer 30 to 45 per cent cheaper food prices and cost $300 million a year to run. That’s just one half of one percent of the defence budget.

Second, we are running on a Green New Deal to create over a million good-paying union jobs in every corner of this country by investing two per cent of Canada’s GDP in tackling the climate emergency, creating decades of employment for trades workers, care workers, transportation workers, youth, scientists, fossil fuel workers, and more. This work will be supported by a new generation of green public corporations like neighbourhood utilities, heat pump manufacturers and installers, the care economy (care work is low carbon!) electric bus factories and more.

Thirdly, a national rent cap that will give power back to renters and put an end to steep rent hikes. The cap will mean that rent cannot be raised by more than the rate of inflation in each province or territory including for vacant units, so landlords cannot jack up rents between tenants. The federal government can do this by implementing backstop legislation that strengthens provincial and territorial rent controls.

Which Carney government legislative initiatives would you change, if you could, and in what way?

First of all, I would repeal the major projects provisions in Bill C-5. It allows the federal government to approve projects, including fossil fuel infrastructure, while bypassing consultations and environmental assessments. It’s the type of bill that would make Stephen Harper blush, ignoring Indigenous rights and flagrantly disregarding the fact that we’re in a climate emergency. We need powerlines, not pipelines – especially not if they’re rushed through over the objections of communities who are trying to protect our air, water and land.

Additionally, Bill C-12 is an assault on the fundamental rights of migrants, refugees, and all Canadian citizens. Rather than keeping us safe, this bill creates a deportation machine that drags us ever closer to the horrors happening in the US. This law opens the door to a new wave of human rights abuses, and tears at the social fabric of communities. We should scrap this law and follow the lead of Spain, who are giving legal status to half a million migrant workers.

Finally, I’m deeply concerned by provisions in Bill C-9 that restrict our constitutional right to peacefully protest. Bill C-9 is an attack on our civil liberties and charter rights. It is designed to limit freedom of expression and the ability of people to organize and speak out for justice, including and especially those organizing for justice in Palestine. I support the cross-country, multi-faith coalition of organizations – including many civil society groups and the Canadian Labour Congress, who are calling on the federal government to withdraw this dangerous legislation.

How would you combat separatism in Quebec and Alberta?

The stoking of Alberta separatism by Danielle Smith, who has cleared the way for a referendum to be held is a dangerous development. This is a cause that appears to be fuelled by American foreign interference, with Trump administration officials meeting with leading separatists. We must strongly reject these efforts, and do everything we can to help Naheed Nenshi win the next provincial election. In my meeting with Mr. Nenshi, I emphasized how I will do everything I can to make this happen, and thanked him for his and the Alberta NDP’s steady work opposing the most right-wing government in this country.

In addition to being dangerous, it’s also a distraction from Danielle Smith’s agenda of cuts and privatization. The UCP government recently passed Bill 11, a blueprint for American style two-tier health care in Alberta. It is an open invitation to US health insurance companies to come in and cannibalize our precious public health care system. We must not let this happen. That’s why the federal government needs to start strongly enforcing the Canada Health Act, to stop this sell off of medicare dead in its tracks.

Regarding Quebec separatism, the key to addressing it for the NDP is by demonstrating that we are a viable option for Quebec’s progressive majority. This includes having a leader who can not only communicate with people in Quebec in French, but also a leader who understands Quebec’s unique culture and politics. It means upholding the Sherbrooke Declaration and connecting with Quebeckers on the basis of shared social democratic values and ideas. I’m proud to have the support of Charles Taylor, who kept the flame alive for the NDP in Quebec decades before the Orange Wave. The task of reconnecting with Quebec would be fundamental if I have the honour of serving as leader.

What would your conditions be for supporting a Liberal minority government?

If the NDP holds a clear balance of power under my leadership I would like to go in with just one demand: proportional representation. Not a commitment to studying it further, doing it later, holding a referendum or some other way for the Liberals to wriggle out of the commitment – but its full implementation after a citizens’ assembly to decide the exact type of electoral system. It is the reform that unleashes all of the other reforms, and it will end once and for all the phenomenon of “strategic voting” where people feel pressure to vote against something, rather than voting for whichever party or candidate truly aligns with their values.

It is also vital to preventing false majorities where a party that wins 36 per cent of the vote wields almost absolute power. What happens if Poilievre wins the next election in such a scenario? All of the progress made by the NDP in the last parliament, from dental care to the first steps on pharmacare, will be put at risk. This is why electoral reform is so important. Rather than a menu of demands, the NDP should have one clear condition next time and it should be proportional representation.

If you were in charge of Canada-U.S. relations, what would your strategy be for dealing with the Trump administration?

We need an independent foreign policy that pursues alliances with a host of like-minded countries. There is strength in numbers, and we should prioritize deepening ties with progressive governments including Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Spain, to stand up to Trump collectively. All of these countries have not hesitated to chart their own course on the world stage, including by condemning the genocide in Palestine and standing up against the bullying of smaller nations in the Western Hemisphere by the Trump administration. The Carney government has been silent on these matters, and the NDP must be a principled voice for human rights and justice without exceptions. In addition, we should not be pursuing deeper military integration with the United States, like the “Golden Dome” missile defence system, which Prime Minister Carney continues to entertain.

As well as an independent foreign policy, we must also build an independent and resilient domestic economy that can withstand the shocks of Trump’s tariffs. Our economy has become far too intertwined and reliant on our neighbour to the south. That’s why we’re running on a plan to expand public ownership, creating new Canadian crown corporations to deliver affordable services from groceries to telecoms to postal banking. And finally, we need to push back against the tariffs with a tax on oil and gas exports to the US, which will also help fund the creation of sustainable jobs and finance the transition to clean energy that we desperately need. 

What steps would you take to decrease growing economic inequality in Canada?

Our campaign is putting forward a comprehensive tax plan for the 99 per cent to tackle inequality and raise the money that we need to properly fund our public services. Inequality in this country has reached unfathomable levels. The top one per cent own almost a quarter of Canada’s net wealth. Meanwhile, the six biggest banks raked in $70 billion in profits last year. Fountains of wealth are being generated, but it’s not trickling down to working people, it’s stuck at the top. We need a government with the courage and political will to finally go after it.

That’s exactly what our plan proposes. The centrepiece of it is a wealth tax of one per cent on the top one per cent, rising to three per cent on the largest fortunes. Such a tax would impact only a small number of people, but it could generate $40 billion a year in new revenue. In addition, we’re calling for capital gains income to be treated the same as employment income, a tax on inheritance of wealth over $5 million, a new income tax bracket for the richest Canadians, a tax on excess corporate profits, and giving the CRA the resources it needs to go after tax cheats.

On the income support side, we would lift people out of poverty with a major increase to income support for disabilities (raising the Canada Disability Benefit to $2150 per month), seniors, families with children and low income adults. We would also create a national framework for a guaranteed liveable basic income, as proposed by Leah Gazan in Bill C-223, to establish a social floor below which no one can fall.

What measures are necessary to empower Indigenous communities in Canada and assure their prosperity?

Empowering and supporting Indigenous communities is threaded throughout our campaign platform on many levels – from our vision of an electric bus revolution that re-connects communities and addresses safety on every Highway of Tears in this land to investing in the care economy, including culturally-appropriate childcare and elder care, to ensuring that impacted Indigenous communities benefit from the wealth generated by mining on traditional territories.

When it comes to development on Indigenous lands, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent must be fully respected and honoured. This requires true, meaningful consultation in partnership and collaboration with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit governments, including with traditional governance systems and structures. Meaningful consultation includes ensuring that all community voices who wish to participate are included in the formal process for projects, but additionally that communities are able to have continued dialogue with the federal government should new issues arise during project development and operations.

Another absolutely crucial element is adopting a “For Indigenous, By Indigenous” Housing Strategy. The housing crisis affecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities is a national emergency. Nearly one in six Indigenous people live in homes needing major repairs that are considered unsuitable for the number of people living there. This is a denial of fundamental human rights, and it has dire consequences for people’s health and wellbeing. The strategy would close the housing gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, through massive investments in urban, rural and Northern Indigenous housing projects, working alongside Indigenous leadership.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Tanille Johnston’s plan for Indigenous reconciliation and empowerment, it’s an outstanding document that I fully support.

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Red-Hot Canadian Oil Patch M&A Likely to Cool

By Andrew Topf - Feb 11, 2026

• Canada’s upstream oil and gas sector saw a record $31.2 billion in M&A activity in 2025.
• 
  
• 2025 saw major deals such as Whitecap Resources’ merger with Veren and Cenovus Energy’ takeover of MEG Energy.
• 
  
• Sayer Energy Advisors expects deal activity to moderate in 2026 due to a shrinking pool of high-quality targets, strong producer balance sheets, and structural constraints despite improving policy signals.
• 
  

Last year saw a record number of deals in the Canadian oil patch, with sectoral consolidation reaching an eight-year high.

But a new report from Calgary-based Sayer Energy Advisors anticipates mergers and acquisitions in Canada’s upstream oil and gas will moderate over the next 12 months.

The report’s findings go against the expectations of industry analysts and executives of more US buyers searching for acquisition targets, along with more favorable government policies towards the sector spurring more action in 2026.

According to the report, via the Calgary Herald, the upstream oil and gas sector saw an estimated $31.2 billion of M&A activity in 2025, a 53% jump from the previous year and the most dealmaking since 2017, when five large transactions led by foreign firms exiting the oilsands accounted for 80% of the total deal value.

The 2025 total included Whitecap Resources’ (TSX:WCP) $15 billion merger with Veren Inc. last March, and Cenovus Energy’s (TSX:CVE) $8.6B takeover of oilsands producer MEG Energy in November.

Other deals saw Sunoco LP’s (NYSE:SUN) purchase of fuel giant Parkland Corp. for $9.1 billion; Keyera Corp.’s (TSX:KEY) $5.1B acquisition of Plains All American Pipeline’s (NASDAQ:PAA) NGL (Natural Gas Liquids) Division; Ovintiv Inc.’s (TSX:OVV) purchase of NuVista Energy for $3.8 billion, and Canadian Natural Resources’ (NYSE:CNQ) acquisition of Chevron’s (NYSE:CVX) Oilsands/ Duvernay Assets ($1.0B).

Buyers bulked up to achieve better returns and operational synergies during a period of lower oil prices averaging roughly $60 a barrel, rather than investing in new drilling.

About 30% of last year’s M&A activity targeted assets in the Montney formation of northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta — a region known for its natural gas, condensate and NGLs.

Most major deals were completed by domestic players, although interest from US buyers began to increase as US shale wells started to become depleted.

A separate report from ATB Capital Markets notes most producers still have strong balance sheets, which could slow M&A in 2026, as there will be fewer firms looking to sell.

“We anticipate a modest slowdown in Canadian (exploration and production) M&A activity through 2026 following three years of robust consolidation within the sector,” the report states, per the Herald.

“This expected decline in momentum is driven by an intersection of structural and economic factors, most notably the scarcity of remaining high-quality targets that possess adequate scale and inventory depth to justify valuation premiums.”

On the other hand, Grant Zawalsky, senior partner and vice-chair at law firm Burnet, Duckworth and Palmer LLP in Calgary, was quoted by The Canadian Press as saying that “M&A is a way that you can grow when you don’t want to invest in drilling, when you’re not going to get the kind of returns you’re expecting,” he said.

“Until the fundamentals change, we’ll likely see more of the same.”

He should know. Zawalsky worked on three major energy transactions last year: the Cenovus-MEG Energy acquisition, Whitecap’s combination with Veren, and Ovintiv’s purchase of NuVista Energy.

BD&P was involved in eight of the 10 biggest transactions.

Tom Pavic, president of Sayer Energy Advisors, said that while the investment environment has been improving due to the Canadian and Alberta governments reaching an energy accord that includes support for a new West Coast oil pipeline, he hasn’t observed increased global interest in Canadian acquisitions.

Pavic chalked the disinterest up to lingering concerns over regulatory burdens and infrastructure needed for overseas exports.

However, US private equity players have been showing an interest in picking up Canadian assets, building up production and then selling the companies or taking them public.

“Anywhere they see a value arbitrage with Canadian assets selling lower or being developed at a lower cost, they view that as an opportunity,” Zawalsky was quoted by The Canadian Press.

“And they tend to be more willing to take risk on the regulatory side than established oil and gas producers.”

By Andrew Topf for Oilprice.com

Big Oil’s Merger Boom Is Being Driven by a Surprisingly Small Club

By Haley Zaremba - Feb 06, 2026

• Just 20 oil and gas companies accounted for more than half of the total M&A deal value over the past decade, according to Bain & Co.
• 
  
• Frequent acquirers dramatically outperformed non-acquirers, delivering shareholder returns roughly 130% higher over ten years.
• 
  
• Recent mega-deals, including Devon’s acquisition of Coterra, highlight how consolidation is reshaping U.S. shale even as future dealmaking may slow or shift focus.

The oil and gas sector is continuing to consolidate after years of ‘merger-mania’, with ramifications for the entire energy sector and wider economy. But a recent report reveals that the spate of mergers and acquisitions that has characterized the fossil fuels industry over the last decade is not as widespread as it may seem, but rather concentrated among a few key players. 

A newly released report from the consulting firm Bain & Co found that, within the oil and gas sector, “fewer companies are doing more of the deals and creating more of the value.” In fact, over the last ten years, just 20 companies were responsible for 53% of total deal value when it comes to mergers and acquisitions within the sector.

“And it’s not only the large supermajors,” Bain & Co report, “but also independents such as Diamondback Energy and large midstream companies such as ONEOK and Energy Transfer.” Indeed, this consolidation frenzy is reshaping the landscape of Big Oil, with not-quite-supermajors gobbling up more and more of the market.

What is more, the companies that are driving merger-mania are winning big. The report concluded that the companies considered to be ‘frequent acquirers’ ultimately provided shareholder returns that dwarfed the firms that were not involved in acquisitions over the last ten years. Companies completing at least one acquisition per year yielded returns that were a jaw-dropping 130% higher than companies that did not conduct acquisitions. This is more than double the performance gap seen between acquirers and non-acquirers in the sector a decade ago.

What is the math behind this massive performance gap? In layman’s terms, as explained by news outlet Semafor, “mergers tend to allow companies to capture scale and reduce unit costs through operational efficiencies and consolidated infrastructure, savings that have become more important now that oil prices have retreated from their 2022 peak.”

The consolidation boom has been especially concentrated in the United States, where “year-over-year mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity surged 331%, totaling $206.6 billion,” according to an August report from Ernst & Young. In fact, the domestic oil and gas sector has shrunk from a field of 50 major players to one of just 40 big names.

Just in the last two years, Chevron bought Hess for $53 billion, Exxon Mobil bought Pioneer Natural Resources for $60 billion, and Devon bought Grayson Mill Energy for $5 billion. And this merger-mania reached a new height just this month as Devon moved to acquire Coterra for nearly $26 billion in a marriage of two “crown jewels.” This deal “creates a domestic oil and gas juggernaut trailing only household names Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips in sheer production volumes” according to Fortune.

However, not everyone is thrilled about the new United States shale giant. The deal is a pure stock deal, with Devon shareholders set to hold 54 percent and Coterra shareholders 46 percent of the merged company. This makes it a bit contentious for investors. As explained by MarketWatch, “investors in the acquiring companies don’t usually like stock deals, because issuing new shares to fund the purchase dilutes their holdings, meaning they now own a smaller percentage of the company.”

The Devon-Coterra merger, popular or not, is major news after a relatively quiet year for mergers and acquisitions in 2025. In fact, it could be the harbinger of the next big consolidation wave. But probably not.

Some experts think that merger-mania is set to wind down or at least reorient its focus as prices become more volatile on the back of shifting demand patterns. “With ongoing uncertainty around supply and demand, pricing, tariffs, and geopolitics, operational efficiency and capital discipline will be critical,” says Ernst & Young’s Herb Listen. “The companies that adapt quickly, invest strategically and integrate effectively will define the next chapter of U.S. energy.”

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

Venezuelan expats who helped propel Canada oil sands growth see return home as unlikely







By Amanda Stephenson
Wed, February 4, 2026 


CALGARY, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Professional engineer Luis Cabana couldn't take a walk in downtown Calgary in the mid-2000s without someone he knew calling out to him in Spanish.

Office towers in the corporate heart of Canada's oil and gas sector were at the time heavily populated with Venezuelan expats who had fled persecution and ​economic stagnation in their home country.

Wintry and vast, Canada is geographically far from the heat and humidity of Venezuela. But the oil sands of northern Alberta and Venezuela's ‌Orinoco Belt produce a remarkably similar variety of thick, tar-like heavy crude, a fact that over the decades prompted thousands of Venezuela's best and brightest engineers, scientists and geologists to move to cities like Calgary, Edmonton and Fort McMurray.

"We were over-represented. ‌I knew another professional at every single company downtown," said Cabana, who came to Canada in 2006 and spent more than a decade in project management positions in Canada's energy sector.

These expats helped Canada develop its oil sands and become the world's largest producer of heavy crude, even as Venezuela's own oil production declined. And in spite of U.S. President Donald Trump's stated goal to revive Venezuela's oil industry, many Venezuelans who built careers in Canada say they are unlikely to return to the country of their birth as they have built lives elsewhere.

Trump's move to revive Venezuela's oil industry has sparked anxiety in ⁠Canada, as an increase in heavy oil supply from Venezuela could displace ‌some of the oil that refiners in the United States buy from Canada.

A significant increase in Venezuelan output is unlikely for years, however, because U.S. companies are reluctant to invest in big-ticket, multi-year projects without signs of long-term political stability and a new legal framework with wide endorsement in the South ‍American country.

CHAVEZ REGIME, OIL STRIKE PROMPTED EXODUS

Reuters spoke to four Venezuelans in Canada, each of whom came to the country during one of several waves of migration starting in the early 2000s. One of the most significant occurred between 2001 and 2010, after the rise of Hugo Chavez's regime, and following a massive strike at state-owned oil company PDVSA and the resulting collapse of the Venezuelan oil industry.

Some of the 7,450 Venezuelans who - according ​to federal statistics - came to Canada during that period had occupied senior roles at PDVSA. Chemist Pedro Pereira, who had been director of PDVSA's technology strategy and was blacklisted by the ‌Venezuelan government after the strike, took a position at the University of Calgary where he led nanotechnology research for oil sands applications. He also recruited dozens of other Venezuelans with expertise in heavy oil to join him.

"I ended up producing technology not for Venezuela – which was the country that paid abundantly for the education of all these people – but for Canada," said Pereira, who today runs his own Calgary-based tech company focused on renewable energy.

Many other Venezuelans migrated to the oil sands hub of Fort McMurray, a small, northern Alberta city surrounded by boreal forest.


"When I got there it was minus 35 (Celsius), and when I left Caracas, it was plus 25, so it was a bit of a shock," said Lino Carrillo, who had worked in heavy oil processing and refining in Venezuela ⁠before being recruited by Canada's Suncor Energy in 2004.

Venezuela's oil industry decline coincided with the growth of Canada's, ​as the early part of this century was a period of significant oil sands expansion driven by high oil prices ​and technological breakthroughs.

"People appreciated the Venezuelan knowledge," said Carrillo. "I believe Canada would have accomplished what it did with the development of the oil sands anyway, but what they did was they brought in people with 15, 20 years of experience and that helped shortcut the path."


WAVE OF REVERSE MIGRATION UNLIKELY

Carrillo, who worked in ‍a number of senior oil sands management positions and ⁠is now retired, maintains close ties to Venezuela and even worked directly on the development of opposition party leader Maria Machado's energy platform.

Machado, who fled the South American nation in a daring seaborne escape in December, is competing for Trump's ear with members of Venezuela's government and seeking to ensure she has a role in governing the nation going forward.

Many ⁠expats say even if Venezuela begins to rebuild its oil industry and returns to democracy, a reverse wave of migration from Canada's oil sands back to the Orinoco Belt is unlikely.

"Venezuelan expats have lots of conversations about 'will they go ‌back, how can they help their country recover,'" said Pereira. "But it's two generations that have passed now, and the ones that have expertise, most of them are at ‌least 55 years old."

(Reporting by Amanda Stephenson in Calgary; Editing by Caroline Stauffer and Nia Williams)

 

TACO Time or Wartime? Examining Trump’s Latest Threats

By Mel Gurtov

February 2, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons, G. Edward Johnson, CC by 4.0. Donald Trump’s photo credit: Public Domain.

Donald Trump is on the warpath again, threatening Greenland, Iran, Canada, and Cuba. Will he be TACO—Trump Always Chickens Out—or will he carry through on the threats—seizing Greenland, seeking to overthrow the Iran and Cuba regimes, destabilizing Canada? Let’s take a look.

Greenland: A “Core National Security Interest”

Jeff Landry, the Trump administration’s envoy to Greenland—he’s also governor of Louisiana—has written an op-ed for the New York Times January 29 that tells us the US intends to dominate the island.

“When President Trump took office last year, he recognized an uncomfortable fact that many others have avoided: America must guarantee its own unfettered and uninterrupted access to key strategic territories in the Western Hemisphere, including both Greenland and the Panama Canal.”

Pairing those two locations is revealing, since Landry proposes that “Greenland fits squarely within” the idea behind the Monroe Doctrine for Latin America. Now that Trump believes he has a “framework for a future deal” on Greenland, the US will use it to (in Landry’s words) “set the rules in one of the world’s most strategically consequential regions in perpetuity.”

“American dominance in the Arctic is nonnegotiable,” writes Landry. “Greenland is a core national security interest for the United States,” repeating what Trump said at Davos. That’s an extraordinary statement: It elevates Greenland to the level of Europe’s or the US homeland’s defense, among other national interests.

And it’s wrong. Chinese and Russian activities in and around Greenland hardly amount to a national security threat. Contrary to Trump’s statement in a January 9 press conference, there are no Chinese and Russian destroyers circling Greenland, nor “Russian submarines all over the place.” Nor, finally, are there any indications that Russia or China plans to “occupy” Greenland. All we see are Russian and Chinese fishing boats.

Nevertheless, the US is going to build more bases in Greenland, establish a “Golden Dome” missile defense, build more icebreakers, and vigorously patrol the Arctic waters to prevent a Russian or Chinese takeover. These plans may conceal a long-term design on Greenland and its mineral resources. After all, governments typically are prepared to go to war over “core national security interests.”

Iran: Make a Deal or Perish

Once again, President Trump is threatening to attack Iran. Just a few weeks ago, the threat turned on Iran’s reaction to massive protests and the possible execution of protesters. The US was “locked and loaded”; protesters could count on the US. But Trump was evidently persuaded by Arab countries and the US military not to attack.

Now Trump, having failed to back up his promises as thousands of protesters were killed or jailed, is saying Iran has revitalized its nuclear weapon capability. That’s the capability he had claimed was “obliterated” in US attacks last June. Trump has ordered US military vessels to the Middle East, saying that “like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary.”

News reports indicate Trump is considering various options, including putting US troops into Iran. Evidently, Trump has become so enamored with the successful seizure of Venezuela’s leader that he thinks Iran can be as easily dealt with. Yet Trump also says he hopes to avoid the use of force. In short, more gunboat diplomacy.

Iran is responding, as in the past, with threats of its own and offers to talk. If the US attacks, Iran says it will spark a regional war and that Israel and US bases in the region will be targets.

But Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has also said Iran was “ready to begin negotiations if they take place on an equal footing, based on mutual interests and mutual respect.” He said there were no immediate plans to meet with US officials, adding: “I want to state firmly that Iran’s defensive and missile capabilities will never be subject to negotiation.”

In the past, Iran has also said its nuclear enrichment program is off the bargaining table. That point collides with the demand made by Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special Middle East envoy, that Iran stop its enrichment program and transfer all its enriched uranium out of the country.

Will Trump order another attack on Iran? More bombing is certainly possible, whereas a direct intervention in Iran would invite disaster. Trump’s war threats have activated some in the Senate to craft a resolution that would remove US military forces “from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran” unless authorized by Congress. Prospects for stopping Trump by resolution or the War Powers Act seem dim considering that these measures were not enacted to prevent his Venezuela adventure.

Canada: Squeezing with Separatism and Tariffs

Angered by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s upstaging him at Davos, Canada’s trade deal with China, and Canada’s supposed refusal to certify Gulfstream business jets, Trump’s team has looked for ways besides high tariffs to pressure Carney’s government. US treasury secretary Scott Bessent recently
suggested US support for a separatist group in Alberta, arguing that the province is a “natural partner” of the US.

That support apparently extends to the highest level of the US government, according to an account in The Daily Beast. “Very, very senior” officials in the Trump administration have had secret meetings with far-right Canadian separatists trying to shake the foundations of the country. The covert meetings between high-ranking U.S. officials and the Alberta Prosperity Project,” says the report, “have met U.S. State Department officials in Washington, D.C. three times in the last nine months.”

One member of that project who attended the meetings claimed: “The US is extremely enthusiastic about a free and independent Alberta. We’re meeting very, very senior people leaving our meetings to go directly to the Oval Office.” The group is hoping to place a referendum on independence on the ballot.

US officials deny supporting this movement, but the State Department acknowledges that meetings did take place. The US officials’ denials ring hollow. The very fact that US officials would engage with Canadian separatists is a shocking level of interference in Canadian affairs. It shows that if Trump cannot fulfill his dream of making Canada the 51st state, he may still try to pry off one province.

Cuba: Economic Warfare or Regime Change?

Following up on Marco Rubio’s threats to Cuba, the island’s oil imports are drying up. Trump has made sure Venezuelan oil is no longer available, threatening to raise tariffs on any country that might provide it. Cuba’s usual sources of oil, Mexico and Angola among them, are being closed down, almost certainly under US pressure.

Mexico’s President Claudia Scheinbaum insists the decision is a sovereign one, and that Mexico will continue to provide oil as humanitarian assistance. But when we consider that Trump has threatened to go after drug cartels in Mexico, and that the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement is up for renewal shortly, it is hard to credit Scheinbaum’s claim.

Trump has made clear the US strategy for regime change: an economic blockade. “Cuba will be failing pretty soon,” he boasted. Indeed, by some estimates, Cuba has only about 3 weeks of oil, after which a humanitarian crisis is being predicted. Diesel is essential to producing electricity and for transportation, water delivery, and agriculture.

During the Cold War, the US embargo of Cuba was justified by Cuba’s support of revolutionary movements in Latin America and Africa. Now the pretext is that Cuba is a national security threat because it provides “a safe haven for transnational terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas”. No evidence has been offered in support of this charge—and I doubt any evidence exists.

TACO Time?

A president who began his second term riveted on dismantling democracy and doing away with the rule of law has now become an imperialist, with military interventions and weaponizing tariffs the main instruments for accomplishing US goals. How far will he go in each of the four cases?

Trump has a history of backing off from threats, but the Venezuela experience has clearly made him think he has license to intervene abroad with impunity, especially in Latin America where weak regimes are in no position to resist. There’s a good chance he will overreach, as imperialists do, facing pushback that he and his advisers had not foreseen in Greenland and NATO, in Iran, and in Canada.
He will also face domestic political costs as independents and even some MAGA supporters resent his overseas adventures for taking money and attention away from a corroding economy. So, TACO time or wartime?

Either way, Trump will threaten world peace and stability, alienate traditional friends, and possibly spark new wars. Increasingly unpopular at home, he may just be desperate enough to authorize more outrageous actions abroad.

Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University.

Venezuela and Iran: Oil and Survival

The global energy map is being redefined and brings Tehran and Caracas together: gaining control of their oil wells requires military power. January 2026 marks a turning point: Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and President Donald Trump both held key meetings with the hydrocarbon business sectors, confirming what had been hinted at for some time in analyses: the US needs to take control, by any means possible, of Venezuela and Iran’s oil resources. In Venezuela, after a disproportionate attack, they managed to force a reform of the Hydrocarbons Law, which had already been relaxed in practice under the confidentiality of the “Anti-Blockade Law.”

By Carmen Navas Reyes

February 2, 2026

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

A Final Toast – by Mr. Fish

Venezuela, under threat following the attacks of January 3, and in perspective alongside the historical mirror that is Iran, allows us to study the models of classic oil nationalism and pragmatic resistance. But beyond the economy, some analysts have put forward the theory that Venezuelan and Iranian oil is not just a business, but vital ammunition in the war scenario being proposed by the United States.

The 2026 Reform: Privatization or Tactical Lifeline?

To understand the current reform, we must look at the red numbers. In 2014, Venezuela had annual oil revenues of close to $40 billion. Following US sanctions and the financial blockade, that figure plummeted to just $740 million in 2020. The state, owner of the resource, was left without the capacity to extract it and without banks to collect payment.

The response was the Anti-Blockade Law of 2020, which gave rise to the Petroleum Participation Contracts (CPP). According to the inputs from the recent high-level meeting, CPPs are not traditional concessions. They are service agreements where the private sector invests and operates, collecting its investment directly through physical production (barrels), eliminating the financial transaction that the US could block.

The government defends the success of the model: revenues in five years increased to a record $14 billion in 2025, which, although far from historical revenues, were considerably higher than the $740 million at the worst point in 2019. The reform now seeks to give this mechanism legal status, removing it from the realm of exceptionality, which often placed the Venezuelan state at a disadvantage. Jorge Rodríguez, president of the National Assembly, sums it up as a “flexibilization of tariffs” in which the private sector provides the capital and the state maintains sovereignty over the oil field. While Caracas discusses the new legal basis for adapting to the new conditions of energy relations with the US, Donald Trump sent a message from Washington on 23 January confirming the US president’s change of stance on oil geopolitics: “Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world… larger than Saudi Arabia’s,” suggesting that the US could make “a lot of money” from this pragmatic relationship.

The Clash of Visions and Internal Criticism

The reform has sparked some criticism. Former oil minister Rafael Ramírez, who faces corruption charges in Venezuela, described the measure on January 27 as a “repeal of the 1976 nationalization.” For those who have historically defended oil nationalism, the CPPs, within the framework of the reform of the Hydrocarbons Law, hand over operational control—which they consider to be the real value—to transnational corporations.

The government counters with “war pragmatism”: the 2006 model (with 90 percent of revenue going to the state) was ideal in peacetime, but unviable under siege. The new scheme ensures between 65-70 percent of revenue and, most importantly, keeps the industry alive. This represents a forced retreat due to circumstances in order to avoid total suffocation.

The New Cold War: the China factor

This is where the global dimension comes into play. Why are Donald Trump and Washington now showing tacit tolerance for this Venezuelan model (as seen through the licenses granted to Chevron) while maintaining their tough rhetoric? The answer may lie in the goal of containing China.

Several analyses, including those by conservatives such as Tucker Carlson, have put forward a thesis that resonates in the media and geopolitical think tanks: the United States is preparing for a large-scale kinetic or trade conflict with China. In this scenario, control of Venezuelan oil reserves ceases to be a market issue and becomes a matter of pure national security.

Carlson warns that the Trump administration finds it unacceptable that the world’s largest reserves (Venezuela) and one of the keys to the Persian Gulf (Iran) are supplying China. “The oil is going to China… it should be coming to us,” is the underlying interpretation of Washington’s new doctrine.

From this perspective:

Cutting off resources to the enemy: The goal is no longer just to “change the regime” in Caracas for “democratic” reasons, but to decouple Venezuela from China. If the CPPs and licenses allow Venezuelan crude to flow to the Gulf of Mexico (US) instead of Shanghai, Washington wins a strategic battle without firing a bullet.

The Iranian Case: With Iran, the situation is more volatile. Carlson suggests that hostility toward Tehran seeks to cut off China’s main secure energy artery in the Middle East. Controlling or neutralizing Iranian oil leaves China’s industrial and military machinery vulnerable to a naval blockade. And at the same time, controlling the supply routes.

This “New Cold War” explains the current paradox: the US, while turning the Caribbean into a large military base, is allowing Venezuela to breathe economically (through Chevron and, in the future, the participation of other large US companies), because it prefers a pragmatic Venezuela that sells to the North, rather than an unaligned Venezuela that is a secure energy supplier to China and, financially, contributes to putting the nail in the coffin of the dollar as a global currency.

The Historical Mirror: Iran and Venezuela (The “Petroleumscape”)

This dynamic is not new. Venezuela and Iran share a historical “petroleum landscape.” Both suffered Western-orchestrated coups when they attempted to nationalize their resources (1948 and 1953). Both founded OPEC in 1960 to defend themselves.

In recent years, the Caracas-Tehran alliance has been existential. Iran taught Venezuela how to navigate sanctions (covert fleets, refinery repairs, among others). Now, both countries find themselves in the vortex of the US-China dispute. The legal reform in Venezuela is, at its core, a maneuver to survive on this chessboard: ensuring its own cash flow to alleviate the US threat, even though the geopolitical gravity inevitably pushes for greater pressure from Washington on both countries.

This Story Has Been Going On For More Than 100 Years.

The partial reform of the Hydrocarbons Law is much more than a technical adjustment; it is an act of survival on the eve of a major global conflict. Venezuela is sacrificing part of its income and operational control (which it was already doing via the CPP with the Anti-Blockade Law) to reinsert itself into the Western market and try to circumvent the blockade.

Ultimately, in the war for global hegemony waged by Washington, which sees Beijing as its main contender, Venezuelan and Iranian oil are the ultimate strategic trophies. Venezuela and its 100-year history of oil, as we began to study, is one of the battlefields.

Carmen Navas Reyes is a Venezuelan political scientist with a master’s degree in Ecology for Human Development (UNESR). She is currently pursuing a doctorate in Our America Studies at the Rómulo Gallegos Foundation Center for Latin American Studies (CELARG) in Venezuela. She is a member of the International Advisory Council of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.

This article was written by Globetrotter.