The News Rundown

Liberals putting out ‘feelers’ for NDP MPs to cross floor: Davies

With newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney only getting a minority of seats in the parliament, he will need a few MPs from other parties to go along with him to pass legislation. Naturally, people look at the NDP who while getting reduced to just 7 seats, provides the number needed to push that into a majority.
New Interim NDP Leader Don Davies, a longtime NDP MP in Vancouver and one of the few NDP MPs re-elected a few weeks ago, says the Liberals are making phone calls to NDP members of parliament to see if they will join the Liberal Party in an effort to reach a majority government. Davies said he’s not worried about his six other NDP MP colleagues switching political teams.
Prime Minister Mark Carney ruled out making a formal deal with the NDP when asked if he’d be interested in pursuing a governing pact at his first press conference after the election on May 2. He said: “No. Short answer, no. Obviously by definition in Parliament, we will need to get majority support to pass legislation, but … we will be putting forth legislation that’s consistent with our platform and consistent with the requirements of the time.”
The NDP went from 25 seats in the House of Commons to just seven in the last federal election, failing to keep the 12 seats needed to maintain official party status. Being a recognized party in the House grants certain privileges that the NDP has now lost. Those include being guaranteed a question in the daily question period, participation in committees and funding for the leader's office and research bureau.
Davies said he is speaking with both Liberals and Conservatives to make the case that the NDP should be granted recognized status — but he said talks with the Liberals haven't included the possibility of backing the government in exchange. He did describe the talks with both parties as "positive".
Davies said he has not spoken with Carney yet, but he is planning to ask if the prime minister will make the NDP an official party. He said: “If not that, then there’s other ways that Parliament can allocate money to different party caucuses in order to help them discharge their duties. I go back to the fact this is a minority Parliament, and so making sure that parties can function in a responsible way, I think, is to everybody’s advantage, including Prime Minister Carney’s.”
While the party has not done a post mortem yet of what went wrong during the election campaign, both Davies and former NDP MP Nathan Cullen said the supply and confidence agreement former NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh made with former prime minister Justin Trudeau may have contributed to the slump in the polls.
Beyond the negotiations to gain recognized status in the House, Davies said the NDP is focusing on rebuilding after its collapse on election day. He said the NDP — which has traditionally been considered the party of the working class — needs to reconnect with its roots. The Conservatives also put a heavy emphasis on courting working-class and union voters during the campaign. A number of private-sector unions backed the party as Conservatives picked up seats in areas considered to be blue collar. Davies said he suspects the Liberals also have attracted some blue-collar voters away from his party in recent years.
With this move, Davies and the NDP have set the stage for their implicit support. While saying otherwise, it's clear that the official party status hurdle is going to dictate how strong Carney's minority is. Clearly the NDP will bow to Carney's platform and continue to vote with the Liberals whether or not they allow Davies and his fellow 6 MPs certain parliamentary privilege. The only question remains is will the NDP be able to reinvent themselves and go back to their roots, or is Canada now in a true 2 party system for good?
Supplementals:

This week the Government of Alberta and Premier Danielle Smith announced the Alberta Next panel.
The panel will explore long term options for economic and constitutional protections from Ottawa otherwise known as the federal government.
With that there will be a 2026 referendum on key proposals that emerge from those discussions.
Smith has repeatedly and again this week said that she believes in Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada and that she and her government will not put forward a referendum on leaving Canada.
While Smith said she had a productive conversation with the incoming government and Mark Carney and she is pushing for a stronger Alberta, the Alberta government will respect the will of the people if Albertans ask for such a referendum.
There has been discussion from the media, other Premiers, and just those opposed to Smith that she is championing the idea of separatism. She’s not.
The constitution of the UCP says members must be committed to Canada.
And in many ways Smith and the UCP see the idea of a potential referendum as an outlet but more on that in a little bit.
Smith has also said the province will pursue a new “Alberta Accord” within Canada, demand port access for energy and resources, and ask for the repeal of Bill C-69 and the emissions cap.
Alberta would also ask for consent on any export restrictions of resources and ask for the same federal transfers that BC, Ontario, and Quebec get.
The end goal would be to get to a place where the energy industry is not hobbled.
Alberta has its own industrial carbon tax so let’s put the federal one aside for a moment.
But let’s realize that the impact assessment act or Bill C-69 has the power of preventing projects from being built.
Let’s also realize that the tanker ban off the coast of BC is damaging.
And the emissions cap is a de-facto production cap because a company won’t invest if the emissions headroom for say 2035 is not there.
Addressing those issues would be a good start to quelling the current independence push.
There are other things as well like democratic reform and the west’s representation that can be tackled later.
Now you might ask, how might a province leave Canada?
The process is set out by both the Clarity Act and Supreme Court of Canada Quebec secession reference - both of which are online and are written in plain enough english that they are understandable.
Effectively, the Clarity Act says that there needs to be a clear question in a referendum on separation that is attained with a clear majority. Then the federal government must enter into meaningful negotiations with that province.
The Supreme Court in 1998 indicated that Quebec negotiations could be very difficult and they could fail. If they failed due to parties other than Quebec then and only then would unilateral secession be well received by the international community.
First Albertans would need to gather the number of signatures required. These are in person signatures witnessed by someone including a full name, address, and phone number.
Through this a movement needs to be built with campaigners and a get out the vote operation.
There also needs to be the temptation to poison the pot by many bad actors and crackpots. Any bad leader could set such a movement back. There is also no need to create a new political party since the tools already exist.
All of this could very well end up being a bad idea.
Smith herself said that if there isn’t an outlet it creates a new political party - Smith herself should understand what happens when political parties split the right in Alberta.
The dangers don’t end there though.
If a referendum were to happen later this year even or in 2026 it would set the stage for a 2027 election of federalism vs. separatism - though not because of the UCP, because of the media and opposition.
NDP leader Naheed Nenshi is already lining up to hold the referendum and captain the pro-Canada side.
The media would undoubtedly line up on this side too.
Even if no referendum happens the fact that the UCP has taken steps to make a referendum easier has set the wheels in motion for an election campaign of team Canada vs. an independent Alberta.
We saw how team Canada went just two weeks ago.
A united opposition is the likely outcome. The UCP can’t support an independent Alberta but they can’t ignore it either. This puts the UCP in a very difficult spot for the next election - more so than 2023.
The UCP’s best bet, politically, may be to lower the threshold for a referendum to be held, hold it quickly, and hope that the movement can’t get off the ground.
If a referendum were to fail it could easily be another decade or more before there is appetite to try again.
Those who value a competent right leaning government in Alberta should hope that Smith and the UCP are able to negotiate a new deal with this government there is no referendum and no new political parties formed.
Supplementals:

Far from cutting red tape, B.C. NDP fast-tracking law hands big overriding powers to cabinet

The BC NDP have introduced their long promised 'fast tracking legislation', two bills that are meant to expedite approval of major projects, with much talk of “streamlining, fast tracking and cutting red tape.”
But, on closer examination, the two bills do not actually repeal any of B.C.’s heavy regulatory burden. Rather they give the cabinet arbitrary powers to override existing rules, regulations and procedures on projects favoured by the NDP.
Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act consolidates oversight under the B.C. Energy Regulator for nine wind projects and a new electrical transmission line serving the Northwest. It also allows the cabinet to designate any other “renewable energy project” as worthy of expedited regulation.
Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, also allows the cabinet to designate a broad range of public and private sector projects as worthy of jumping the regulatory queue.
Only one existing piece of legislation is repealed: the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, enacted by former BC Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell as a deregulatory measure in 2003, but seldom actually used.
Bill 15 mostly empowers the government to intervene as it sees fit on behalf of “provincially significant projects,” public as well as private. Factors to be considered in reaching that determination include whether a project contributes to: “Public infrastructure, critical minerals supply, food or water security, health and safety, energy security, disaster recovery, trade diversification, access to new markets, supply chain security, replacing U.S. imports, B.C.’s climate goals, and partnerships with First Nations.”
Those sweeping powers are intended as mere tools, according to Bowinn Ma, cabinet member for the new Ministry of Infrastructure. She said: “Right now, we don’t actually have very many tools to reach in and take greater responsibility for moving projects along when something goes wrong. Let’s make sure we understand what we’re referring to when we talk about permitting processes. These are literally hundreds, if not thousands of processes, if you include municipal governments across the province, that have been developed not just over years, but over decades and over generations. Although each of them is very well meaning, they end up kind of being spaghetti.”
How will the province determine whether to “reach in” to the regulatory process? A proponent like a local government, a Crown corporation, First Nation, or company can flag their project as critical and ask for help. Then it's up to cabinet to decide if that project needs a regulatory helping hand.
With this, The BC NDP is departing from a regulatory regime where the same sets of rules and procedures apply to every project, and moving to one where they can provide favours for whichever project they feel like.
So the New Democrats will assess applications for regulatory relief on a case-by-case basis, moving favoured ones to the front of the line and relegating others to the back of the regulatory pack. This also invites speculation about inside deals, crafted by lobbyists and party insiders, and advanced for political purposes.
With the NDP’s new way of doing things, proponents could wonder whether it was merit or political connections that determined whether their project got put on the fast track or left on the back burner.
There's also the issue of this legislation being received badly by pretty much everyone involved. Eby was to meet with Indigenous leaders on Wednesday night after they complained he’d failed to properly consult them about the government’s new Infrastructure Projects Act.
Eby conceded to reporters at a midday news conference in Victoria: “I’ve got some work to do tonight with the leadership council. There’s clearly some misunderstandings about this legislation and I hope to be able to clear them up.”
Eby insisted it was not the NDP’s intention to trample Indigenous rights. The government is still bound by the Constitution and its own laws to consult First Nations and accommodate their interests on projects. It fully intends to do so, but all that will be happening after the fact, not before.
The government’s failure to properly consult Indigenous leaders in advance brought immediate protests. One of the first to speak out was Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former federal justice minister and MP from B.C. She said: “Having read Bill 15, which purports to fast-track projects, (here’s) my prediction: more lawsuits, more uncertainty, and poorer economic and environmental outcomes.”
This week came a broad-based blast at the NDP’s handling of Bill 15 from the Indigenous leaders who make up the First Nations Leadership Council: “Bill 15 has the potential to greatly impact First Nations’ inherent and Aboriginal rights, title, and jurisdiction both in its application and its intended outcomes. It could result in major extractive projects being fast-tracked, contrary to the province’s constitutional, legislative, and environmental obligations and commitments.”
The council flagged the government’s apparent disregard for the Declaration Act, brought in to implement the principles of the UN Declaration. It committed the New Democrats to consult Indigenous leaders on major legislation in advance, during the drafting process, not afterward as happened with Bill 15.
Infrastructure Minister Bowinn Ma admitted that the New Democrats skipped over the preliminary consultations because their political agenda called for passage in the spring session of the legislature.
The New Democrats called a snap vote on a motion that allows them to cut off debate and enact Bill 15 and two other pieces of legislation on May 28, one day before the scheduled adjournment of the spring session. The motion passed by a vote of 46 to 44 with one Conservative and one Independent MLA absent.
It suggests the New Democrats have every intention of using their legislative majority to ramrod passage of Bill 15 this month, never mind how they disregarded Indigenous nations during the drafting process. However they may need to tweak certain aspects as the two Green party MLAs, their sometime supporters, won’t be voting for Bill 15. The Greens say the legislation gives the cabinet too much arbitrary power to override other authorities and approve any project the New Democrats deem to be “politically significant.”
Regardless, it appears that the NDP are continuing where they left off, ramming through legislation and trying to take more power for themselves.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Proposed US$9-billion acquisition of Parkland to go to shareholder vote in June

If one thing has defined this year it is the Canadian push to buy Canadian and protect our country from American influence.
American company Sunoco has made a $9.1b USD bid for Canadian company Parkland Corporation.
Parkland owns over 4000 gas stations under the Esso, Pioneer, and Ultramar brands as well as the On the Run convenience store chain. They also happen to own the Parkland refinery otherwise known as the Burnaby refinery in BC.
It is that same Burnaby refinery that refines oil coming from the Trans Mountain Pipeline.
This bid will go to shareholders in a special meeting on June 24th.
Many people see Parkland as a Canadian company but the reality is that Parkland’s largest share holder is Simpson Oil out of the Cayman Islands.
If approved, the acquisition will create the largest independent fuel distributor in the Americas, according to Sunoco. Sunoco will maintain a Canadian headquarters in Calgary and “significant employment levels in Canada” the company said.
In 2023, Parkland turned down a takeover bid from Sunoco that valued the company at $45 per share. This bid comes in at $44 per share.
For the acquisition to go through it will require approval of 66.6% of shareholders and approval of the federal government.
Earlier this year before the election the federal government said they would review deals deemed predatory.
Sunoco has ties to the Trump administration through the company chair Ray Washburne. Washburne is the vice chair of the Trump Victory committee and also served as the finance chair for the Republican National Committee.
Countless times during the election campaign now Prime Minister Mark Carney said that the Americans are trying to break us so they can own us.
This acquisition flies in the face of any movement to respect Canadian sovereignty if it were to go through.
Sunoco has already created a new NYSE company called SUNCorp with $2.6b USD cash.
The logical expectation is that this deal will be shut down by the federal government.
Deals in the past have been shut down when hostile countries have tried to buy stakes in Canadian industry.
If this deal is not shut down by the federal government it will raise serious questions about the seriousness of Canada Strong and elbows up, two mantras pushed by the Liberals during the campaign.
We must be clear at this point that we are not advocating one way or another for this deal to be accepted or rejected.
In an ideal world we remain masters of our domain and have minimal foreign involvement in key sectors.
New coverage of this potential acquisition was present in Alberta-based energy news but garnered little national coverage.
In normal circumstances this would be a normal deal but it deserves a critical look given the present relationship with the United States.
Supplementals:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sunoco-parkland-proposed-sale/

Quote of the Week

“Right now, we don’t actually have very many tools to reach in and take greater responsibility for moving projects along when something goes wrong. Let’s make sure we understand what we’re referring to when we talk about permitting processes. Although each of them is very well meaning, they end up kind of being spaghetti.” - BC Infrastructure Minister Bowinn Ma on reducing regulation by giving more power to the cabinet.

Word of the Week

Clarity - the quality of transparency or purity

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Pursuing Clarity
Teaser: The federal NDP are asking for official party status, the Alberta UCP are navigating an independence movement, and the BC NDP’s fast tracking legislation hits some hurdles. Also Parkland Fuels may be bought by an American company.
Production Code: WC-417-2025-05-10
Recorded Date: May 10, 2025
Release Date: May 11, 2025
Duration: 54:38
Edit Notes: Patrick pause post Patreon

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX