The News Rundown

Canada’s TikTok operations ban overturned by Federal Court

TikTok occupied a strange space in Canada where users were allowed to use and post to the app but the company was not allowed to operate.
The operations ban came from a 2024 government ordered ban for the company to close its Canadian offices citing national security concerns.
The concerns were that the app’s algorithm could influence Canadians in ways that ran counter to national security concerns.
Specifically, TikTok’s algorithm is a black box that only Chinese parent company ByteDance is fully aware of how it works.
The value of TikTok and other short form videos and what they do and provide to consumers is of course up for question as it always is.
But the questions became bigger when people became aware that potentially a foreign power could be exerting control over the algorithm. A foreign power that had a history of exerting foreign influence on Canada.
Typically companies in China that become large operate at the pleasure of the Chinese communist party. Companies have to follow strict rules and generally support the policies and outlook of the Chinese communist party.
That is why TikTok was banned in Canada and the US.
Now though that ban has been overturned by a federal court.
With the ban overturned it now follows to Industry Minister Melanie Joly to conduct a new review.
Many will believe and think that the court arrived at this position on their own but it was actually the government that requested the court overturn the ban and they obliged.
University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist who writes heavily about digital law discussed the overturn.
Geist said, “ It should be noted that the court did not rule on, or even examine, the substantive issues in the case. Instead, both sides agreed on a settlement in which the government effectively withdrew the initial order and TikTok agreed to a future review that could lead to new demands on the company.”
Looking at this from TikTok’s perspective, the immediate risk of closure is now over.
For the governments side though this represents a continual undoing of Trudeau era internet legislation alongside the digital services tax and AI regulation Bills being undone.
Geist said this could increase pressure to undo both the Online Streaming Act and Online News Act if they are compounded by US pressures over trade talks.
Geist finally summarized the changes as being a move towards digital policies in the national interest rather than policies that prioritized public battles with tech companies.
The big through line though is that this is being presented in media as a court overturn but the reality is that the government pushed for this outcome.
What the court issued is effectively a consent order which requires the government to go back to the drawing board on this process.
The threats surfaced at a parliamentary committee in 2023 discussed “cyber-enabled espionage and foreign interference.”
Of note that this week more than any other week Canada stands between both China and the US.
China is in the news because of the effort to warm the relationship after our story we covered last week.
The US is in the news as a result of the forthcoming CUSMA renegotiation.
We don’t presently know what the current US administration feels regarding TikTok and whether or not they’d be ok with the security implications of the overturn.
However, the move to overturn the TikTok operation ban could be seen as another chip being put on the field to further warm relations with China.
While many are indeed focused on the US, it is important for us to question just what exactly is operating in our country of a foreign nature whether it be American or Chinese.
Supplementals:

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2026/01/canadian-tiktok-ban-called-off-as-the-government-hits-the-digital-reset-button-once-again/

Because of the courts interpretation of hastily made laws by the BC NDP resulting in outcomes that the NDP did not expect, it seems that David Eby's style of 'reconciliation by legislation' is being put on its back foot. It's been the major theme in the 2nd half of 2025 and this story is continuing into 2026 as well, where the NDP have created a lot of questions in the province, rather than providing everyone with peace of mind.
Eby says his government will be amending the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) to scale back the power courts have in shaping reconciliation efforts in the province.
Eby was speaking at the Natural Resources Forum in Prince George Tuesday night, but many of the questions were about his landmark First Nations legislations that recent BC court decisions have thrown land use, title and rights in the province into question. Eby said working with First Nations governments is essential to driving investment decisions in the province. But, he said, recent court decisions "have created real confusion about what the Declaration Act is about and what reconciliation means in practice."
Eby said: "Reconciliation is the business of government-to-government relationships between the provincial government, the federal government and First Nations governments. It is not for the courts to take over. That's why we're going to amend the Declaration Act in spring to make that intent explicit."
Eby had previously hinted at his intention to revise DRIPA in December after the B.C. Court of Appeal found the legislation is incompatible with the province's current system of granting mineral rights.
He's also been under pressure from the B.C. Conservatives to repeal the act altogether following a firestorm of controversy sparked by a B.C. Supreme Court decision this past summer awarding the Quw'utsun (Cowichan) Nation title this summer to between 300 and 325 hectares of land. Around 150 pieces of private property in Richmond, B.C., are situated on that parcel of land.
While the Quw'utsun have explicitly stated they have no intention of pursuing land owned by private owners, the case is viewed as one of the more consequential in the history of Indigenous rights and title in B.C.
Meanwhile, B.C. Conservative critic for Indigenous relations Scott McInnis sent out two calls Tuesday for the government to repeal or reform DRIPA, claiming the NDP government has continued to cause confusion and uncertainty by signing land-use agreements with various First Nations.
McInnis said in a release sent out prior to Eby's address: "This is dividing British Columbians. People are being left to wonder whether land access, development rights, and long-standing property expectations can change overnight, without legislation or public debate."
Eby however said that "The concept of First Nations title was not invented by this provincial law," Instead, he pointed out, it is grounded in Canada's constitution and said repealing DRIPA would "remove the roadmap that we've set out with First Nations about how to resolve these matters outside of court. It would bring us to more conflict in court and it would slow projects down."
A draft version of Eby's speech shared with media also said that repealing DRIPA, "would return us to a darker, conflict-oriented time, and set us back a generation in our relationship with First Nations."
This also happens at a time when in the same week a growing number of Indigenous nations and organizations — some 80 in all — called on the government to leave the law is it is.
While Eby’s defence of his plan for the Declaration Act came across well-rehearsed, he scrambled when a reporter asked about Monday’s decision regarding the Heritage Conservation Act. Was it a coincidence that the government had pulled back on its ambitious makeover for Heritage Conservation just as it was getting heat on the Declaration Act?
The premier claims they are unrelated issues, but everyone knows that Forests Minister Ravi Parmar's announcement of postponing changes to the law that governs the designation and protection of heritage sites is connected to the DRIPA issue. Parmar said more time is needed to consult with First Nations, industry and other groups.
DRIPA has also been taking centre stage in the ongoing BC Conservative leadership race, with MLA Peter Milobar saying that Eby should recognize his own government’s role in undermining public support for the legislation.
Milobar said: “I campaigned to repeal DRIPA a year and a half ago. This is not a new position for me or for anyone in our caucus. We have campaigned against it. David Eby needs to admit it is not working, and we need to restart the reconciliation process in a meaningful way. It does not make one racist to say that they do not agree with DRIPA. It simply means we do not agree with this government’s direction on how they are trying to institute reconciliation.”
In February 2025, the Kamloops MLA delivered a powerful speech against residential school denial on the floor of the legislature — including some personal context: “I come from this with a bit of a background that maybe people aren’t quite aware of. My wife, my kids, they’re all Indigenous. My grandchildren are Indigenous. My son-in-law is a Tk’emlúps band member.”
The Tk’emlúps have also been in the news for another reason this week: A Kamloops landowner has learned an expensive lesson that most British Columbians don’t even know exists: if you dig for a garden on your own property and uncover Indigenous remains, in this case, two skulls, you could be on the hook for six-figure costs, with no help from the government and no clear way out.
In just seven months, the discovery has triggered more than $100,000 in legal and archeological costs on an empty parcel of land assessed at $440,000. The Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc have demanded more than $80,000 in additional fees, including 24-hour security provided by them at roughly double the normal rate.
At the same time, the property has been declared an untouchable “sacred site” locked behind layers of provincial red tape and bureaucratic delay—all while duelling archeological reports suggest the two skulls in question may not have originated on the property at all, but were dumped there many years ago as imported fill under a previous owner.
It is, for many, a nightmare scenario. Start a small project in your backyard, only to hit an ancient object or bone that predates you by hundreds of years but nonetheless puts you on the hook legally for a mountain of costs, without help from any level of government.
This is just one case that is happening in the province, and many more could follow, given the NDP's current laws. Private property is under fire in BC, and that's why Premier Eby has been dogged with questions all week about it.
Supplementals:

MAGA has its sights on Alberta

The Alberta independence movement is collecting signatures. If they collect around 178,000 signatures the question of Alberta leaving Canada will likely go to a vote.
What happens after that vote gets dicey.
There are precedents set by the Supreme Court and laws passed by the federal government that facilitate a potential exit for a province from Canada.
What this does not account for however is the path most countries take to independence and gaining relevance on the world stage.
In the past countries have declared independence or broke away from a parent country. Then another well regarded country recognized that country’s independence. This is largely how the countries of the USSR facilitated the break-up of the USSR.
The American administration has taken a very keen interest in the petition process and potential referendum in Alberta.
While Canadian media has not talked about the Supreme Court reference regarding Quebec and the Clarity Act, both of which guide the path forward for a province leaving Canada, they are keen to showcase where independence supporters may be “misguided” or be susceptible to fake news.
The Quebec Secession Reference from the Supreme Court of Canada and the Clarity Act need discuss but this episode is not the episode for that, we will discuss that if Alberta independence does go to a referendum.
What we do need to discuss, however, is the American interest in Alberta independence.
The Canadian media and the government from a surface look do not presently understand how the Trump administration is influenced.
One of the biggest influencers of the Trump administration is Steve Bannon. Bannon worked on the first Trump campaign and now hosts a very prolific podcast.
Many believe that Trump is chaotic, mentally unstable, or just dumb in terms of where his ideas come from. The truth though is that a lot of the policy planks for this administration have originated from the Bannon sphere of influence.
This is where the idea to remove Maduro from Venezuela came from though for reasons many are not aware.
It’s also where the desires to see increased US presence in Greenland came from and it’s where the most recent talk from the Administration around Alberta have emerged from.
Many will have seen US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant discuss what an independent Alberta would mean and how the province could be a “natural partner for the US.”
On episodes of Bannon’s podcast last week he detailed the risk the China deal presents to the US and said, Let me be blunt, you are playing with fire. You will rue the day you did that. President (Donald) Trump is not just going to let the Chinese Communist Party become an active strategic partner up there. It’s not going to happen.”
Bannon has also talked about Alberta becoming a US state in past episodes calling the province a gateway to the arctic.
Media coverage has talked about the Alberta Prosperity Project seeking support from the Trump administration.
Writing in the National Post, John Ivison, detailed the engagement that the Alberta Prosperity Project has sought and went through what the Trump administration could potentially do in the province.
Ivison’s article cites Marcus Kolga, founder and director of DisinfoWatch, said it wouldn’t surprise him if the Administration and U.S. government agencies were to boost and support Alberta’s separatists.
Kolga believes this was done in Greenland and Canada should be aware of this given our past experience with Chinese and Russian influence.
Often the discussions about the Alberta Prosperity Project seeking support from the US administration is showcased in the media to discredit the group and its supporters.
The idea of Alberta independence being beneficial to the US have already landed in the Trump administration.
Scott Bessent said, “Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they won’t let them build a pipeline to the Pacific. I think we should let them come down into the U.S.”
This is likely music to the ears of many who support the Alberta independence movement but what is often misconstrued is that most who want an independent Alberta want the province to not be part of the US.
The lesson here is simple: the media and our governments need to be aware of the flow of information in the US and who exactly influences the Trump administration and that often there is a bigger picture but those who are in our governments and in our media just don’t bother to look into where the Trump administration gets its ideas from.
Many across the country think this is important solely for Alberta. But the reality is that if MAGA considers Canada a hostile actor, that line will make its way to the Trump administration and no one should be surprised when it does.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Carney's Davos speech highlights that it is Liberal rhetoric that doesn't match reality

Carney's speech at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland has been praised by many worldwide and in Canada, but has raised the ire of Donald Trump and the US administration.
"Today I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power is submitted to no limits, no constraints."
"On the other hand, I would like to tell you that the other countries, especially intermediate powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the various states."
"For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection. We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim."
"This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. This bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition."
Pierre Poilievre was largely supportive of the speech but challenged the Liberal Prime Minister to back up his words with actions.
"Prime Minister Mark Carney’s well-crafted and eloquently delivered speech at Davos has been widely noted, and I want to start by offering some praise of my own. The Prime Minister is right to restate what many have said for years: Canada must become more self-reliant, less dependent and work with like-minded countries to advance our interests. Conservatives are, as always, willing to work with him to turn these words into results."
"What stood out was when he pointed out “the gaps between rhetoric and reality.” That is especially true here at home. If Liberal words and good intentions were tradeable commodities, Canada would already be the richest nation on earth. Unfortunately, after a decade of promises and grand speeches, Liberals have made our economy more costly and dependent than ever before."
"After nearly a year of Prime Minister Carney, things have only gotten worse: the deficit has doubled, food inflation is double that in the U.S., housing costs are the worst in the G7, and no pipelines are approved or anti-development laws removed. The military has massive recruiting and equipment shortfalls. There is still no free trade between provinces, no crime laws passed and the prime minister’s signature promise of negotiating a win with the U.S. is unfulfilled. Indeed, U.S. tariffs have more than doubled on Canada, while Mr. Carney’s promised counter-tariffs have vanished with his elbows."
Carney's speech was well-crafted, refreshingly direct and bracing in some of its language — and it heralded a dramatic break in both Canadian foreign policy and the world order. But the reaction, both in Canada and internationally, may more simply speak to some unquenched desire among many to hear someone in a position of power say something like that about everything that is now unfolding.
Trump's vaguely threatening comments the next day may have only served to confirm Carney's thesis. Speaking in Davos, Switzerland, where he made the case for a U.S. acquisition of Greenland, Trump said he needs the Danish territory for his proposed "golden dome," a missile defence system that could cover North America.
Trump said the dome will protect Canada due to geography and the country isn't grateful enough that such a system is in the works. Carney has been non-committal in the past about Canada participating in or paying for what Trump is floating: "Canada gets a lot of freebies from us. By the way, they should be grateful but they're not. I watched your prime minister yesterday. He wasn't so grateful — they should be grateful to the U.S., Canada. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements."
During his long, rambling remarks, Trump again referenced Canada while he was touting the supposed benefits of his global tariffs regime. He said these levies are bringing "hundreds of big factories [and] car plants" back to the U.S. "[They're] coming in from Canada, coming in from Mexico, from Japan. Japan's coming in and building plants here in order to avoid tariffs," Trump said.
Trump has been fixated on the damage he has inflicted on the Canadian auto sector. At a White House news conference on Tuesday to mark one year since his second inauguration, Trump cited trouble in Canada's automotive industry as one of his accomplishments.
Trump told workers at a Ford factory in Dearborn, Mich., last week that Americans "don’t need cars made in Canada." Vehicles are the second-largest Canadian export by value at $46.5 billion in 2024, of which 92 per cent was exported to the U.S.
Trump's latest broadside also comes a day after he posted an altered image on social media of the U.S. flag over Canada and Greenland, a nod to his past 51st state annexationist taunts.
Saturday, as of recording, Trump threatened Canada with steep tariffs if it “makes a deal with China” and insulted Prime Minister Mark Carney, his latest swing at the country since Mr. Carney pushed back against his policies in a highly publicized speech in Davos, Switzerland, this week.
“If Governor Carney thinks he is going to make Canada a ‘Drop Off Port’ for China to send goods and products into the United States, he is sorely mistaken. China will eat Canada alive, completely devour it, including the destruction of their businesses, social fabric, and general way of life,” Mr. Trump said in a post on Truth Social. “If Canada makes a deal with China, it will immediately be hit with a 100% Tariff against all Canadian goods and products coming into the U.S.A.”
While Trump routinely fails to make good on his tariff threats, calling Carney “governor” could be a bad sign for the two countries’ relationship. After returning to the White House last year, Trump routinely applied the title to Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau, as part of his rhetoric about the United States annexing Canada.
Canada gave Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative, a detailed preview of the agreement with China before it was signed, a senior Canadian official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to divulge details about communication between the two administrations. Trump appeared to praise Carney after the deal was announced. (“Good for him,” he said.)
But he soured on the prime minister after Carney’s Davos speech, in which Carney declared that the U.S.-led world order had been ruptured and called on “middle powers” like Canada to band together to survive a new and perilous era.
The speech did not go down well with Mr. Trump, who responded in his own address the next day at Davos, saying that Canada “lives because of the United States.” Mr. Trump also rescinded an invitation to Mr. Carney to join his “Board of Peace.”
Supplementals:

Quote of the Week

"Today I will talk about a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality, where geopolitics, where the large, main power is submitted to no limits, no constraints." - Prime Minister Mark Carney’s opening to his speech in Davos on the changing geopolitical structure of the world.

Word of the Week

Hegemony - leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others

How to Find Us

Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

x.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Ambition and Reality
Teaser: Canada’s federal court overturns the TikTok ban, BC will revise its First Nations DRIPA legislation, and the US is looking at Alberta’s independence movement with interest. Also, Carney’s Davos speech sends a political shockwave across the world.
Production Code: WC-453-2026-01-24
Recorded Date: January 24, 2026
Release Date: January 25, 2026
Duration: 1:10:46
Edit Notes: Transition into FL pause

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX