The News Rundown

Poilievre pushes law change to allow deadly force against home intruders

After the crossbow wielding attack in Lindsay Ontario there has been a deluge of commentary on how the homeowner defended himself.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford called for home owners to be able to defend themselves.
Commentators have touted “reasonable force” and not beating someone to death.
But now, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre says the Conservatives will table a Bill that ensures that Canadians have the right to use force, including deadly force, against someone who enters their home illegally and poses a threat to their safety.
This comes after the case of the crossbow attack where an armed man entered a residence in Lindsay, Ontario. The home owner fought back and left the attacker with injuries and the home owner is now being charged.
Making the announcement in Brampton Poilievre said, “the Criminal Code says that you can defend yourself based on 9 very complicated and vague conditions… you have one condition - to protect yourself and your kids.”
The Bill that the Conservatives want to table will change the Criminal Code to say that the “use of force, including lethal force, is presumed reasonable against an individual who enters a house and poses a threat to the safety of anyone inside.”
The Conservatives are very clear that this is only standing against the unlawful entry of a home.
With this Poilievre also said, “your home is your castle.” This evokes imagery and is similar to laws on the books in some American states.
The difference though is that while many of the castle doctrine states south of the border allow for one to simply open fire if one trespasses and can’t be warded away, the exact Criminal Code changes pledging to be made are much more granular.
And those Criminal Code changes will come only if the Carney government won’t make changes allowing homeowners to defend themselves.
For many urbanites the idea of this must seem absurd but in the past on Western Context we’ve covered stories where rural home owners were waiting far too long (on the order of 30 minutes+) for police to arrive at break-ins. We’ve even discussed the times rural Albertans had to form a to catch assailants.
Boris Bytensky, the president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, said that the current proposal doesn’t change more than confirming the presumption of innocence applies when somebody uses force inside their own house against an intruder.
He said that while somebody may be charged with a crime, they still need to be convicted, and the Crown now needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did not “act reasonably” or in self-defence.
The urban perspective was very very prevalent through Canada’s mainstream media this week with headlines to the tune of “you can’t just get mad.”
The excerpt came from a CTV story that interviewed a Toronto based criminal attorney.
The attorney said that, “You can do anything that’s reasonable in the circumstances, not anything you want. We do anything that’s reasonable or proportionate in the circumstance. You can’t just get mad and there’s no vigilante justice.”
This is how the story has been presented in mainstream eastern publications focused around the downtown cores of Toronto and Montreal.
Most of the knee-jerk reaction to the idea of something similar to castle doctrine comes from the hatred Canadians have of America.
In the US most states including the west coast and new England area have castle doctrine. Some of these states have duty to retreat and some don’t.
Duty to retreat requires one to retreat if safely possible before using deadly force.
There’s also stand your ground laws which extend to any place you have a legal right to be and there is no duty to retreat.
A lot of the stories people hear about “castle doctrine” in the US are focused around stand your ground laws.
For example if someone approaches you while working outside under stand your ground you don’t need to move into your house. The same could be said if you were walking through a park, you’d be able to defend yourself.
What the Conservatives are proposing is simply the presumption of innocence to anyone defending their home, a right that is present in all US states.
This suggestion of allowing self defence has led to a revulsion of some in the media highlighting reasonable force and not being allowed to beat someone to death.
The revulsion is probably because of the misconceptions around castle doctrine vs. stand your ground and it would be imparting something from the US, which we know how the eastern media establishment feels on that matter.
Supplementals:

We at Western Context knew for a long time that Canada should have developed its resource industry sooner, with the economic power that the exports would give translating to power on the world stage in spreading Canadian values of democracy. Even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, we knew there'd be a market worldwide for stable Canadian LNG, both in Asia, Europe, and even in places like South America and Africa, not to mention the existing infrastructure that goes to the United States.
Indeed, it seems that the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau was content to limit our export capacity to just the United States, a terrible decision in hindsight and even at the time, given the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 showed the instability that was coming in Eastern Europe.
Even in the wake of Russian aggression in 2022, Trudeau that summer said to Olaf Scholz, then German Chancellor, that there wasn't a "a clear business case yet for the development of a natural gas export terminal" to deliver to Europe.
So now Canada, despite the signs being there for a demand for LNG for over 10 years, is now stuck playing catchup. Canada has now entered renewed discussions with Germany on supplying liquefied natural gas, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday — a prospect critics say should have become reality years ago.
Speaking alongside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin, Carney said his government will make announcements “in the next two weeks” on new port infrastructure funding, which could mark the first major “national interest” projects approved under legislation passed in the spring.
Carney specifically identified the Contrecoeur expansion of the Port of Montreal, which is set to increase container capacity by as much as 40 per cent, and revitalizing the Churchill port in northern Manitoba. The latter project “would open up enormous LNG (export potential), plus other opportunities” for shipping critical minerals and metals to Europe, Carney said, creating “a new port, effectively.”
Speaking to reporters in Berlin at a separate event, Carney's Energy Minister Tim Hodgson said the goal being sold by Canadian proponents to German buyers “is being able to ship in as little as five years.”
Exactly three years later from Trudeau's ill-fated 'no business case' comments, Hodgson said the business case has indeed changed. “I think there was a view prior to a few years ago that the need for natural gas would be relatively minor and relatively short-term. I think what we all realize post-Ukraine, post what’s happening with AI, that natural gas is going to be a transition fuel that’s in greater demand in Germany and for a longer period of time. Canada has the opportunity to be a great partner to Germany in that regard.”
This is revisionist history. There was clearly a need then, and there's even more need now, and we're still stuck waiting at least 5 years for infrastructure. Even so, Hodgson was publicly critical of the Trudeau government for failing to prioritize the Canadian LNG sector, saying: “Unlike the previous Canadian government, which closed the door to LNG exports, Prime Minister (Mark) Carney’s government has opened it.”
But never fear, because according the Polish Ambassador to Canada, we're still getting Canadian LNG to Europe, it's just taking a roundabout way. Witold Dzielski, when asked if there was Polish demand for Canadian LNG, said that plenty of Canadian gas is indeed finding its way to Europe — but via the United States at a markup: “Remember; some of the LNG that’s coming from the United States to Europe, to Poland, is also Canadian … but it’s being sold for a much higher price.”
Dzielski’s comment was swiftly highlighted by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who noted Dzielski’s wide smile during the statement, which Poilievre attributed to the ambassador “(stopping) himself from laughing at us.”
Jamie Heard, an executive with the Canadian natural gas producer Tourmaline, told National Post that “nearly all” of their LNG exports to the U.S. have ultimately wound up in Europe. He said this has been good for them, as it does give Tourmaline a means to get Canadian gas across the Atlantic. But it’s also been good for the U.S. Cheniere Energy, the U.S. exporter handling Tourmaline’s product, which Heard says “is making a fair return on our business,” adding that this is translating into higher tax revenue for the U.S. government.
Canada is now also racing against the United States, which became the largest global exporter of LNG in the seven years it took to build the first phase of LNG Canada. Three new facilities anticipated to start operations by the end of next year could increase the country’s LNG export capacity by 50 per cent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. President Donald Trump’s new trade deal with the European Union includes a commitment to purchase US$750 billion in American oil and gas in the next four years.
As time goes on, we're going to find out just how right we were on how terrible Trudeau's handling of the country and economy was, and we are left hoping that Carney is not going to repeat the same mistakes. For the most part, on LNG development, he's saying the right things, but we're at the point now where we need to see results from this Liberal government before we can believe any promises from anyone, either from the former administration or not.
Supplementals:

Alberta government opens public engagement on nuclear energy

Power and the cost of power is always a contentious topic in Alberta. Alberta unlike most jurisdictions has private power delivery rather than a crown corporation.
This week we’re seeing discussion on the power grid move to nuclear and the unveiling of an advisory panel to consult with Albertans.
Edmonton based Capital Power and Ontario Power Generation released the results of a partnership they formed last year to conduct the feasibility of SMR (small modular reactor) technology in Alberta.
SMR primer.
Ontario Power Generation is developing four 300MW SMRs for use in Darlington, Ontario.
The report says that SMRs are both technically feasible and the right fit to support Alberta’s energy, industrial, and technology sectors.
They’re looking at placing SMRs in north-central Alberta, specifically, Leduc County, Woodlands County, and the area known as the Alberta Industrial Heartland northeast of Edmonton.
Calgary based firm Energy Alberta submitted an initial project description with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for a large scale nuclear generating station in the Peace River region.
If this one were to be built it would produce up to 4,800MW of electricity as early as 2035.
Impact Assessment Agency notes.
Energy Alberta announced last week it asked for and received a temporary pause of 3-6 months at the request of some indigenous communities.
To facilitate the discussions going forward on Nuclear, Premier Danielle Smith announced a panel to engage with residents and offer the public a chance to voice their opinion.
She said, “Nuclear power has the potential to expand our grid, support new industries and keep pace with rising demand. This engagement gives Albertans a real voice in shaping our future, while positioning our province to lead the way in innovative, responsible energy development”
The Nuclear Energy Engagement and Advisory Panel will include Parliamentary Secretary Chantelle de Jonge.
Deron Bilous, senior vice-president of Western Canada, Counsel Public Affairs
Tim Boston, principal, Boston Edge Strategies Inc.;
Stephen Buffalo, president and CEO, Indian Resource Council of Canada;
Rudiger Tscherning, fellow on Nuclear Law and Policy, University of Calgary; and
Harrie Vredenburg, professor of Strategy and Global Management, University of Calgary.
The panel will advise Alberta’s government about its potential role in advancing a nuclear energy industry in the province with a deadline of March 1, 2026.
The Alberta Electricity Systems Operator (or AESO) has had a turbulent past with power prices spiking and at times the grid was not able to deliver the amount of energy required.
The AESO is presently in the process of revamping how the electricity market works with changes slated to come into effect in mid 2027 with the goal of having cost savings until 2030.
After this, at most, prices should increase 2% a year.
The one surefire way though to have the costs go down is to add more consistent electrical generation.
Ontario has the bulk of their power generation come from nuclear. Looking at the average generation levels over the last 14 days we see that nuclear is a consistent reliable source compared to the peaks and valleys of hydro, wind, solar, and even gas.
Right now Alberta would need about 14,000 more wind turbines or an 8 times increase to displace our natural gas generation. We’d need almost 3.8 million more solar panels and the storage capacity to build a buffer for when it’s dark or cloudy.
With the whims of the federal government and a push by future progressive governments to further tax natural gas, it makes sense to seek out a consistent, reliable energy source which nuclear can be.
A lot of the concerns about nuclear are from ages gone by and don’t withstand today but the media doesn’t have the knowledge to share that.
That’s why this process for Alberta and Western Canada is so important.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Liberals are already missing their promised lower immigration targets

It appears that the honeymoon for Mark Carney, if it isn't over yet, will be coming to an end at least before the end of 2025 unless certain things change or improve. Number one on that list or close to number one, is immigration.
Despite promises from the Liberal government that they would be curbing the sky-high immigration rates of the Trudeau era, new data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada shows that Canada is already on track to exceed its 2025 targets. In the first seven months of 2025, Canada accepted 246,300 new permanent residents, according to data released last week by IRCC.
If this level of intake keeps up for the rest of the year, Canada is on track to bring in approximately 422,000 new permanent residents by year’s end.
With an average of 1,200 new permanent residents accepted in Canada every day, the country is still operating at a rate of immigration intake well beyond almost any other point of the last 100 years.
For comparison, when Canada admitted 260,400 new immigrants in 2014, Statistics Canada noted that the country’s immigration intake was reaching levels not seen since before the First World War.
The current intake, by contrast, is about 62 per cent higher. In 2014, an average of 21,700 permanent residents were accepted by Canada every month. In 2025 so far, the monthly average is 35,180.
What's been less talked about has been the influx of temporary foreign workers, or TFWS into industries in Canada that do not require specialized labour, at a time when the unemployment rate across Canada is still high.
For the entirety of 2025, Canada was only supposed to approve 82,000 entries under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Nevertheless, Government of Canada data shows that 105,195 Temporary Foreign Worker permits were awarded in just the first six months of 2025.
Temporary migration has been disproportionately responsible for the record-breaking population growth witnessed in Canada over the last four years. Since 2021, Canada’s population has grown from 38 million to 41.7 million. This represents an average annual increase of 900,000, which puts Canada well beyond the population growth rates of any other G7 country.
In late 2024, Statistics Canada estimated that the country was home to an unprecedented three million “non-permanent residents,” be they international students or temporary foreign workers.
Temporary migration is also the category on which Ottawa has promised to crack down hardest. Late in 2024, when then prime minister Justin Trudeau announced plans to “turn off the taps” on immigration, temporary migrants represented seven per cent of the overall Canadian population. The new Liberal targets anticipated shrinking this to five per cent by the end of 2026.
Nevertheless, in the Temporary Foreign Worker category, the intake is set to remain almost exactly the same as last year. In the first six months of 2024, the number of approved temporary foreign worker permits stood at 109,310, as compared to the 105,195 seen in the first six months of 2025.
Immigration has rapidly become one of the most distinct points of difference between the Liberals and the opposition Conservative Party. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was critical of federal immigration management during the spring election campaign, and pledged to set immigration targets in line with homebuilding rates.
But in recent months Poilievre has turned towards placing “severe limits on population growth,” and ensuring that Canada has “more people leaving than coming for the next couple of years.”
All the while, polls continue to show that Canadian support for immigration — which has stayed positive for much of the last two decades — is in rapid decline. Just last month, a Leger poll commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies found that a clear majority thought Canada was admitting too many immigrants. Notably, the sentiment was almost exactly the same among immigrants themselves. Of respondents born in another country, 57 per cent thought Canada was bringing in too many immigrants, as compared to 60 per cent of non-immigrants.
Michelle Rempel Garner, a Calgary Conservative MP, has been posting daily on X different positions, like fast food locations that have been applying for LMIA, or Labour Market Impact Assessment, basically polispeak for TFW applications.
Juno News also reports that the CBC has used LMIAs to claim they cannot find Canadian workers to fill these positions. The CBC, since 2015, has filed at least 20 of these in Ontario, including for positions they deem “high wage.”
CBC spokesman Chuck Thompson told True North that they were “unaware” of the issue but would provide a “more informed answer” in the future.
In the supplementals, we have a website that shows a large amount of companies that are looking for foreign workers.
On immigration, Mark Carney needs to change course over the rest of 2025, otherwise people will believe that nothing really changed.
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

“I think there was a view prior to a few years ago that the need for natural gas would be relatively minor and relatively short-term. I think what we all realize post-Ukraine, post what’s happening with AI, that natural gas is going to be a transition fuel that’s in greater demand in Germany and for a longer period of time. Canada has the opportunity to be a great partner to Germany in that regard.” - Federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson on the so-called changes enabling LNG development

Word of the Week

Power - the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others

How to Find Us

Take our Western Context 2025 Summer Survey
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Canada’s Power
Teaser: The Conservatives aim to curb home invasions, the US is selling Canadian LNG to Europe, and Alberta looks at nuclear energy. Also, the Carney government has already blown past its 2025 immigration targets.
Production Code: WC-433-2025-08-30
Recorded Date: August 30, 2025
Release Date: August 31, 2025
Duration: 59:29
Edit Notes: Name pronunciation, Patreon pause, conclusion pause

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX