The News Rundown

B.C. government accused of 'greenwashing' as it announces $200M to electrify LNG project

The BC government this week made a huge announcement that Premier David Eby says will help Canada “win this race” to deliver liquefied natural gas to Asian markets. The BC NDP have decided to invest $200 million in subsidies for the upcoming project majority owned by the Haisla Nation called Cedar LNG.
The Cedar LNG project, a collaboration between Calgary-based Pembina Pipeline Corp. and the Haisla First Nation, is a floating liquefied natural gas export facility off B.C.'s North Coast set to come online in 2028.
On Monday, Energy Minister Adrian Dix and Eby announced that the province would kick in $200 million to support the electrification of the project, including a new transmission line and substation. The government argues that its support for the project, one of several projects it wants to fast-track in order to stave off the threat imposed by US tariffs, will allow for the exported product to appeal to markets outside the US, including emerging markets in Asia.
Dix said: "Our market position, our proximity to the Asian market, makes it the best LNG in the world, and it's the lowest-emission LNG in the world. And that is an achievement. It's not just a question of displacing coal or other dirtier fuels. It's displacing other LNG, which has dramatically higher emissions."
Originally valued at $3 billion, the federal government says that Cedar LNG will cost an estimated $5.9 billion to build, creating 300 jobs during construction and 100 full-time jobs once operational. It is among seven proposed LNG projects at various stages of development in Canada. It will have the capacity to liquefy approximately 3.3 million tonnes of natural gas per year for export to Asian markets when it becomes operational in late 2028.
The project consists of a floating natural gas liquefaction plant and marine export terminal located in the Douglas Channel near Kitimaat Village, a Haisla community approximately 380 kilometres directly west of Prince George, BC. Eby said that Cedar LNG was the largest Indigenous-owned energy project in North America, and called it a positive for both B.C. and Canada as a whole, saying it represents a “model” for resource development that will help diversify the Canadian economy and reduce reliance on the United States.
Eby was certainly effusive when talking about the project he's been keen to support: "Canada will win this race and we will diversify our markets because of our Canadian values. And those are on display on this project right here at Cedar LNG."
He noted the first large-scale shipment of fuel from the LNG Canada facility, another export terminal in Kitimat, departed for Asia earlier this summer.
Regardless of Eby's obvious patriotism and polispeak, Cedar LNG getting off the ground is a major win in BC for multiple reasons. First, BC is finally taking advantage of its resource rich exporting ability, with its unique geography allowing it to ship goods off the coast to anywhere in the Pacific. Second, it's creating good sustainable and wellpaying jobs for BC workers in a region that sorely needs them. Third, it's supporting indigenous led businesses, and allowing them to take back their sovereignty and independence. Fourth, it's displacing dirtier fuels and coal in Asia and replacing it with BC LNG that will make the province money. And fifth, it also diversifies our export partners, and reduces reliance on trade with the United States which would put us in a more favourable position in future trade negotiations.
And yet there are still strong naysayers in the media, saying this is a bad move, that BC shouldn't be supporting LNG, that it's bad for the environment, that the government is 'greenwashing', that it's trampling indigenous rights, or that LNG isn't going to be profitable to export in the future.
Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science at UBC is one such 'expert' quoted by the CBC as being against the project. Harrison is an environmentalist that says that "It is facilitating production and shipment of fossil fuels, which are the main cause of climate change. Even if British Columbia has very low-emitting terminals, most of the emissions associated with every ton of that LNG [is] released at the point of combustion."
Harrison also says that taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for a fossil fuel project, and that electrifying the project would do little to offset its ultimate carbon footprint. She also questioned what the market prospects for B.C.'s LNG were, saying there were many projects coming online in other countries like the U.S., Australia and Qatar, saying that we shouldn't invest when there might be a glut of LNG supply in the near future.
Jeremy Valeriote, the interim leader of the B.C. Greens, said that public funds for an industry that "may not stand the test of time" was problematic. He said: "It's greenwashing because it's still an unsustainable form of fuel. Taking a tiny part of a high-emission fossil fuel and making it a little bit more green doesn't suddenly make it a sustainable fuel. It's going to have a really hard time competing with other low-cost producers like Qatar and other countries. So it ends up some of the most expensive, which means it's the least competitive, which means it's possibly the first to fall off the block as global demand for LNG starts to go down."
This is the same argument made by environmentalists as to why Alberta shouldn't have invested in the oilsands, because it was oil that was comparatively more expensive to make. Those arguments were clearly proven wrong, and likely will for BC's LNG projects as well.
Still, it bears mentioning that a recent landmark ruling by the International Court of Justice says that rich, oil-producing states like Canada or jurisdictions like BC that don’t act to curb climate pollution and continue to subsidize, licence and boost production will be vulnerable to legal claims around climate harms in the future. By continuing investment in new LNG projects and supporting increased oil and gas, the provincial and federal government may also find they’ll have to pay billions of dollars in compensation to other countries bearing the brunt of change.
Janna Wale, who is a Gitxsan community member and co-author of the new Yellowhead Institute report said the dominant narrative portraying LNG projects as straightforward economic opportunities overlooks significant realities. She says that financial risk stands out as a core issue for Indigenous communities being drawn into the project as equity investors, joint venture partners or through procurement contracts.
Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute, said these communities also bear the greatest risks if things go wrong. Few long-term shipper contracts have been signed, forcing the project to depend on the volatile spot LNG market, where global competition is fierce and prices are unpredictable.
John Rustad, the leader of the B.C. Conservatives, expressed concerns about whether B.C.'s LNG industry was competitive on the global market, but mostly because of permitting times in BC, saying that it was taking years for proposed LNG projects to come online.
"We started LNG in British Columbia 15 years ago, [the[ Americans didn't even consider starting it until 12 years ago. We've managed to get one plant up, one major plant up and running. They [now] have 16."
Currently BC will be competing with our neighbours in Alaska, as well as players in the Middle East for the Asian LNG market, which generally doesn't have many fuel sources of its own. While Eby says that 'nobody would be looking at the United States right now' for reliable energy sources where the price will remain stable with no 'suddenly increased tariffs or taxes on the energy'. that's not exactly true.
Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan and Governor Mike Dunleavy issued a statement applauding Trump’s support for the natural gas industry in the state during a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, and that Alaskans are ready to work with Trump and Japan to “realize a dream (they) have been pursuing for almost half a century.”
If Canada truly wants to diversify our economy and gain trading partners outside of the United States, then Cedar LNG represents the sort of infrastructure and projects that our governments need to be willing to support. There are so many reasons to support it that it should massively outweigh the drawbacks. If Canada wants to stand on our own on the world stage then we need to start investing in our own country in a way that will improve our future.
Supplementals:

The duelling citizen petitions have made some news in Alberta but the roadblocks preventing one from reaching the people is becoming apparent.
A petition being led by former Deputy Premier and Alison Redford’s accomplice in her unethical time as Premier, Thomas Lukaszuk was approved this week by Elections Alberta.
The petition seeks to get signatures and then hold a referendum on the question that Alberta will never leave Canada and asks Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?
The other question put forward by the Alberta Prosperity Project seeks to gather signatures to enable a referendum for Alberta to leave Canada.
The request for a petition was filed with Elections Alberta and before the signature collecting can begin, Elections Alberta has referred the matter to the courts.
Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure said that a judge would need to decide if the question contravenes Canada’s Constitution.
Premier Smith and Justice Minister Mickey Amery said that Albertans should be able to gather signatures “without needless bureaucratic red tape or court applications slowing the process.”
Amery requested Elections Alberta withdraw its court reference.
The Government of Alberta supports sovereignty within a united Canada.
UCP members though are free to have their own opinion and it’s no secret that a portion of the UCP caucus is pro-independence.
Albertan independence comes with many landmines. A lot related to what such a movement would do to the economy of the province and related investment.
There’s also of course the question of how the process would unfold.
And in that process lies the opportunity for many aspects of Canada to put roadblocks in the way.
The Quebec secession reference from the Supreme Court of Canada lays out the process but nothing has ever been formalized.
This means there are opportunities for the House of Commons, the Senate, other provinces, other courts, and at this stage, the courts in Alberta to put up roadblocks.
The question though is whether these roadblocks would galvanize support and make obtaining the 177,000 signatures required easier.
There are many Albertans who might be on the fence but then when they see the way institutions act relating to the idea of a citizen initiative on this matter might just take a side.
The media has not counted on this and is largely going along with the idea that most Albertans see no issue with the question being referred to the court.
The media operates in a sterile environment reporting on the process. But they lack the context as to why this reporting in itself could encourage more Albertans to seek independence when compared to the other options being discussed this week.
The petition put forward by Lukaszuk requires 294,000 signatures as it was granted before the legislated changes came into effect and his organization believes that obtaining those will be easier than obtaining pro-independence signatures.
The difference being is that one is not seen as controversial by the media and institutions of the province and one is seen as controversial, that is, the independence option.
We also have to ask why is Lukaszuk doing this?
He says it’s for the love of Canada and we cannot fault him for that.
But when the Progressive Conservatives dissolved and the UCP formed and Jason Kenney became Premier, Lucaszuk became involved in politics again.
Let us suspend disbelief for a moment at the idea that Lucaszuk would like to see the old ruling Progressive Conservative party back and one of the easiest ways to do that is to sow discontent amongst UCP members.
And an easy way to do that would be to have his petition succeed and the UCP’s fail not because of direct signatures but because of the institutions of Alberta.
On the whole this entire discussion is a destabilizing factor for the province and the media has missed both these angles.
Whether or not you are for Alberta independence you must agree that stability within the province is key before questions of Alberta’s place within Canada can be answered.
The actions this week by Elections Alberta and Lukaszuk’s group do neither to promote stability.
Supplementals:

https://globalnews.ca/news/11310204/alberta-separation-referendum-question-chief-electoral-officer/

Write-in ballots to be used in Alberta byelection due to record number of candidates

The Alberta byelection that will determine if Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre will get back into the House of Commons as an elected Member of Parliament has seen some controversy lately.
Elections Canada says voters will need to write in their desired candidate during the upcoming byelection in Alberta's Battle River-Crowfoot to avoid a massive ballot with more than 200 names.
The independent body said in a news release Monday that voters will be provided the special ballots at advance polls and on election day. Electors will need to write their preferred candidate's name.
According to Elections Canada: "This will replace the typical list-style ballot, on which electors mark a blank circle next to the name of the candidate of their choice".
Elections Canada said a full list of candidates will be available at polling stations. Voters do not have to spell their preferred candidate's name perfectly. As long as it is clear which candidate the elector is voting for, Elections Canada will count the ballot. Write-in ballots are used in every election for voters who cast their ballots outside of designated voting days — including at Elections Canada offices or via mail-in ballots.
The Elections Act allows the head of Elections Canada to make short-term changes in the case of "an unusual or unforeseen circumstance." These unforeseen circumstances include the intrusion of a group of electoral reform advocates, known as the Longest Ballot Committee, has been organizing candidates to run in byelections in recent years in an effort to push for electoral reform.
The committee's organizers want to put a citizens' assembly in charge of electoral reform and say political parties are too reluctant to make government more representative of the electorate.
When asked for comment, a Longest Ballot Committee spokesperson said in an email: "Sounds like they found a very reasonable solution."
More than 200 candidates, mostly associated with the group, have signed up to run in the byelection next month. The vote was triggered after MP Damien Kurek vacated his seat to give Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to rejoin the House of Commons. Poilievre lost his longtime Carleton riding in April's general election.
As of Tuesday, 214 candidates had registered to run in the riding of Battle River-Crowfoot, exceeding the committee's goal of 200.
That's more than double the previous record of 91 which has occurred twice in the past year: during a byelection in LaSalle-Emard-Verdun last September and Carleton during the last general election.
That number of candidates resulted in a ballot roughly a metre long. The massive ballots have resulted in delays in vote-counting and confounded some voters. Despite the switch for the Aug. 18 byelection, Elections Canada is cautioning that there could still be counting delays.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Trump increases tariff on Canada to 35% from 25%, cites fentanyl

Tariffs on non-CUSMA compliant good moving from Canada to the US will increase from 25% to 35%.
This announcement coming early on August 1 as no trade deal has been reached between our two countries.
First, as a reminder it was said that a deal would be reached at the G7.
This was then moved back to July 21 and then August 1.
This moving of goalposts is significant in that it signalled early on that a deal was not likely despite what many in Canada thought.
The entire spring election campaign was fought on the idea of standing up to the Americans in the hope of getting a good deal for Canada. Instead the opposite has happened.
Before Carney took power tariffs were:

14.4% on softwood Lumber
10% on energy
10% on critical minerals
10% on potash
25% on steel and aluminum
and 25% on non-CUSMA goods.

Now they are:

27.3% on softwood lumber
10% on energy
10% on critical minerals
10% on potash
50% on steel and aluminum
25% on cars and trucks
50% on copper
and 35% on non-CUSMA goods

The eagle eyed will note that the things the Americans can get nowhere else easily such as energy, minerals, and potash are the lowest. This should be our secret weapon.
Media response has largely focused on the question of what can Canada do to respond?
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has similarly been beating this same drum: retaliate.
The US President’s trade advisor Howard Lutnick noted that the only two countries to choose retaliation against the US were China and Canada.
The reality is that our response is a drop in the bucket and sooner rather than later the tariffs will begin affecting industry since upwards of 75% of all our exports head to the US.
The US says that the cross border flow of fentanyl is the primary reason no deal has been reached but border security was one of the things that Canada tackled first.
The government by way of the Prime Minister issued a statement late Thursday after deadlines for Friday’s print papers.
The statement says, “while we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser focused on what we can control: building Canada strong.”
He goes on to say that “Canadians will be our own best customer” which at its core sounds as though we’re primarily looking inward for success.
As part of that search for success this government has at least been willing to consult with those from opposing parties. Mark Carney did seek the advice of Stephen Harper regarding trade with the US and whether or not we should seek to maintain close ties.
Harper said, "I was — I think it's fair to say — probably the most pro-American prime minister in Canadian history. However, when this government did actually ask me a few weeks ago ... my advice was the opposite.”
Harper’s advice was that despite geographical proximity it does not justify the degree of dependence that Canada has on a single market.
The Conservative political party in Canada is back in attack mode with Pierre Poilievre responding this weekend saying, “Mark Carney sent everyone home for summer vacation with no budget, a spiralling deficit, inflation up, elbows down, no new resource projects approved and the worst drop in homebuilding in decades. Sure, there have been lots of meetings, politicians patting each other on the back, press conferences, but no results and no plan to get us out of this mess.”
The reality is that without a major shift in terms of how the government seeks to stimulate growth and enable Canada to be more competitive, things are going to get worse.
They’ll get worse through the American’s tariffs but also our counter tariffs.
As of now it’s forecast that counter tariffs will cost Canadians $9b this year or about $550 per household.
This is before we consider things like lower wages, loss of job hours, and job losses as a whole.
Business groups have already discovered that this is a tough pill to swallow with the Canadian Press (bias alert) saying that some business groups in Canada are willing to accept no deal with the US over a bad one.
This is a loser mentality that helps no one because those job losses will still be felt.
The only option is to compete, compete, compete.
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

"Canada will win this race and we will diversify our markets because of our Canadian values. And those are on display on this project right here at Cedar LNG." - BC Premier David Eby on BC’s drive to develop LNG exports.

Word of the Week

Polispeak - language used in a political or bureaucratic context that is intentionally ambiguous, vague, or misleading

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Project Power
Teaser: BC invests in a major LNG project, an Alberta petition wants to see the province stay Canadian, and Poilievre’s byelection sees over 200 candidates. Also, US tariffs increase while the government is on vacation.
Production Code: WC-429-2025-08-02
Recorded Date: August 2, 2025
Release Date: August 3, 2025
Duration: 1:00:27
Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX