The News Rundown

Advancing an oil pipeline to the west coast

A deal has been reached that would see pipeline construction start by September 1, 2027. The deal comes after months of discussion between Alberta and the federal government, a memorandum of understanding, and continual questions about whether or not such a project would see the light of day.
Under the agreement Alberta would submit a proposal for a new pipeline by July 1 and it would be declared in the national interest by October 1.
Under the new agreement industrial carbon pricing will increase to $100 per tonne in 2027 until 2030 and by 2035 the price of carbon will reach $130 per tonne and increase by 1.5% per year to 2040.
The new agreement will also target a market price on TIER credits of $130 per tonne by 2040 and will advance a floor price into the system starting in 2030 to eliminate price volatility.
TIER is Alberta’s industrial carbon pricing scheme that was established in 2008.
Previously the federal government had wanted to see a $170 carbon price by 2035 and this was the death knell to industry. We know this is bothering several others from the old environmental regime as former environment minister Catherine McKenna federally and Shannon Phillips from the Alberta NDP who was environment minister while the NDP were in power in Alberta were expressing concern this week.
Industry providing initial feedback included Mark Poweska, president and CEO of ENMAX saying, ““We are pleased to see the agreement reached between the province and federal government on industrial carbon pricing, providing a clear pathway to grow our electricity sector…”
Overall the agreement includes:
A Commitment not to proceed with a federal oil and gas emissions cap.
Abeyance of the federal Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta.
Agreement to advance an Indigenous co-owned oil pipeline to Asian markets.
Agreement on more competitive industrial carbon pricing under Alberta’s TIER system.
Agreement-in-principle allowing Alberta to continue regulating methane under its existing system while achieving a 75 per cent reduction from 2014 levels by 2035.
Impact Assessment Agreement to streamline project reviews, reduce duplication and reinforce provincial jurisdiction.
Both governments working to advance completion of the Pathways Project, a carbon capture and storage project.
Premier Danielle Smith upon signing the agreement said, “This agreement sends a clear message to investors and global partners that Canada and Alberta are serious about expanding market access, building major infrastructure and creating the conditions for long-term investment in our province’s energy sector.”
Carney himself said, “Today is also about building trust in a Canada that works. A Canada rooted in co-operative federalism where we build together, pragmatically and ambitiously, to achieve our shared ambitions. A Canada where our differences are strengths to be nurtured and respected.”
Despite an agreement, months of work, and the need for Canadian energy there are those who are dragging their heels through the sand. Suspect number one in this case is BC Premier David Eby.
The Premier issued a statement saying, “as a country it’s time to stop rewarding bad behaviour. It cannot be the case that the projects that get prioritized in Canada are those where a Premier threatens to leave the country.”
He seems to also ask for more project approvals for BC despite the major projects office already advancing LNG Canada Phase 2 and the Red Chris Mine expansion.
He also highlighted 35(!) other projects that “need more attention from, and coordination with, Ottawa”
Next week he claims to be meeting with the Prime Minister and bringing him a list of projects that can be worked on “for the benefit of all Canadians” suggesting that what was announced this week is not for the benefit of all Canadians.
First off, as we’ve discussed numerous times Smith is not threatening to leave Canada. That’s what the media says and wants everyone to believe.
Secondly, a pipeline project does benefit all Canadians as the sale of that oil brings revenue to Alberta and Canada as a whole.
Overall Eby is beholden to the mud hut wing of the BC NDP. They are in power and are advancing what is a fringe view within Canada and within BC itself. October 2025 polling from the reputable firm Angus Reid says that 56% of those in BC support an Alberta to BC coast pipeline project. Similarly support is strong for Enbridge’s Westcoast LNG expansion and Northern Gateway when polled within BC.
With no government intervention on the pipeline project there are going to be minority stakeholders along the route and in BC that will do whatever they can to block this project. That means court challenges, astroturfed opposition, and physical protests.
The government of Canada, the government of Alberta, and whatever private company that jumps onboard just needs to build.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre pointed to Germany in that within 10 months they had a new gas import terminal and pipeline operating in 2022 when Russia attacked Ukraine. In his own words the reasons this was possible was because there was the political will and somebody willing to advance the project and make decisions.
In Canada for this project we need to see if the federal government is actually serious about this project. Will they use the provisions in the Building Canada Act that gives the federal government powers to override some regulations for projects deemed to be in that national interest? Specifically the Impact Assessment Act.
The Impact Assessment Act or Bill C-69 or no-more pipelines bill as it has been called requires examination of social impacts such as questioning if access to schools will be impeded, what the project could do to crime rates, and what the project means for indigenous peoples amongst other things.
If the federal government when declaring the project in a national interest does not use the provisions of the Building Canada Act we have to question what this entire process was for.
Pierre Poilievre also outlined why projects have not got off the ground as of yet: “Prime Minister Carney has kept in place every anti-development law from Justin Trudeau, including C-48, the tanker ban, C-69, the no more projects law, and the industrial carbon tax. His industrial carbon tax alone will drive costs up and jobs south.”
Outside of removing the anti-development laws of C-48 and C-69 he says his government would remove the industrial carbon tax, approve the pipeline within 100 days of receiving it, ensure shovels are in the ground by the end of 2026, and publish a plan to allow oil production to grow 2.5 million barrels barrels a day by eliminating taxes and unneeded regulations.
Given all the talk this week there may already be a private sector proponent in waiting. Enbridge has said they “definitely would consider” backing a new oil pipeline to the west coast.
The Enbridge CEO and Danielle Smith both pointed to the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz as a reason why demand for new and reliable oil supplies has emerged.
It would be a magical thing if the conditions started to be created and people got interested in exporting oil from Alberta to Asian markets once again.
It would prove that regulation and policy from governments made such an idea poisonous and it would ultimately highlight that the last 10+ years of policy were a mistake.
This is what the media won’t tell you and why it’s so important this project move forward.
Supplementals:

Last year, the Canadian government pushed Bill C-2, which would erode Canadian digital rights in the name of “border security.” The bill was so bad it didn’t even make it to committee because of the backlash from the privacy community. Now, the spring’s worst sequel, Bill C-22, aka The Lawful Access Act, is trying it again.
The federal government's proposed 'lawful access bill' requiring government backdoors into applications and security protocols, has led to popular VPN service NordVPN to consider leaving Canada entirely.
NordVPN said in a social media post it is reviewing the bill and would consider leaving Canada if the bill requires it to compromise its privacy protections. The company said if Bill C-22 passes “and if we are subjected to mandatory obligations, there isn’t a scenario in which we would compromise our no-logs architecture or encryption protections. To prevent this, we will consider all viable options, including limiting or, if necessary, removing our presence from Canadian jurisdiction.”
Earlier this week, The Globe and Mail reported that the encrypted messaging service Signal also said it would leave Canada if the bill requires it to compromise user privacy. Canadian VPN provider Windscribe said Thursday it also would leave the country if the bill passes.
Windscribe said: “Signal isn’t headquartered in Canada so they can just shut off Canadian servers, but our HQ is. We pay an ungodly amount of taxes to this corrupt government, and in return they want to destroy the entire essence of our service to basically spy on its own citizens. Not happening. We’ll move HQ and take our taxes elsewhere.”
Conservative MP Jacob Mantle said in a post on X Friday that MPs depend on the service.
“Every member of Parliament in the country uses Signal, precisely because they believe it is safe (confidential) to use. No one wants Gary reading their messages,” he said.
The Gary he refers to is Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, whose spokesperson said in a statement the government wants to “reassure Signal and all service providers that we are not legislating to require them to install capabilities to enable surveillance and any assertions otherwise are false.”
The government says the bill will ensure law enforcement agencies have the legal tools to prevent, investigate and respond to modern crime and protect Canadians in a Charter-compliant manner.
Under the bill, authorities could demand that a telecommunications provider like Bell or Rogers reveal whether it provides service to an individual or a number of interests — a measure intended to speed up investigations.
The bill would also require electronic service providers to develop and maintain the technical capabilities necessary to enable police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to effectively obtain communications and information for investigations.
The bill forces digital services, which could include telecoms, messaging apps, and more, to record and retain metadata for a full year, and expands information sharing with foreign governments, including the United States.
The definitions of both “systemic vulnerabilities” and “encryption” are not clear enough in C-22, leaving wiggle room for the government to demand that companies circumvent encryption. And the overbroad definitions in the bill can include apps as well as operating systems. Canadian officials have made it clear they believe it’s possible to add surveillance without introducing systemic vulnerabilities, which is just not true. Surveillance of encrypted communications is fundamentally a systemic vulnerability.
This resembles what happened in the UK last year, when the government demanded that Apple implement this type of backdoor into its optional Advanced Data Protection feature, which then forced Apple to revoke the feature for its UK users instead of complying with the request. To this day, UK users still do not have access to this powerful, privacy-protective feature that provides stronger protections for data stored in iCloud. Both Meta and Apple are concerned that C-22 would give the Canadian governments similar powers, and both companies have come out against the bill. The U.S. House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees also sent a joint letter to Canada’s Minister of Public Safety highlighting the concern around backdoors into encrypted systems.
The dangers of these sorts of backdoors are not theoretical. In 2024, the Salt Typhoon hack took advantage of a system built by Internet Service Providers to give law enforcement access to user data. When you build these systems, hackers will come.
Canadians deserve strong privacy protections, transparency into how companies handle user data, and clear safeguards around encrypted data. Bill C-22 provides none of that, instead reaching further into the digital pockets of tech companies to build broad lawful access mechanisms.
Supplementals:

Judge quashes Alberta separation petition in favour of First Nations

This past Wednesday Alberta Court of King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard threw out the petition initiated by Stay Free Alberta asking whether or not Alberta should remain a province in Canada.
The petition was thrown out because consultation was not done first with First Nations. Listeners will note that in Quebec in the 90s, consultation would have eventually happened and it was not a requirement of having a referendum.
As part of the decision, Justice Leonard found a failure to consult with Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, Blood Tribe, Piikani Nation, and Siksika Nation.
In the ruling, the judge wrote, "As a matter of logic and common sense, there can be no doubt that Alberta's secession from Canada will have an impact" on two treaties signed in the 19th Century with First Nations peoples and the Crown.
That’s what this is about. It is a huge deal for the Constitutional place First Nations sit within Canada.
To understand more about why the decision was made we need to look into the appointment of Shaina Leonard.
Leonard was appointed in March 2020 by the Trudeau government. Her education comes from McGill University and the University of Alberta. She was deployed to Afghanistan in 2009 where she worked with the Americans as a legal mentor to the Afghan National Army and she is fully bilingual.
Justice Leonard is an accomplished woman and justice. But we can not exclude the optics of somebody who received a high education out east in addition to her Alberta education and somebody who was ultimately born in Saint John, New Brunswick issuing a decision on one of the biggest moments in Alberta’s history.
This is exactly the kind of argument independence minded Albertans wanted to further their cause.
The ruling also sets a massive Constitutional precedent. It effectively means that any legislation, petition, or referendum can potentially not have an impact to Aboriginal treaty rights.
This is a ruling from an Alberta court but there is the possibility of it being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. If that happens this is a massive shift in how Canada is governed outside of legislation.
It would effectively mean that even though the treaties are from the 19th century the courts have provided First Nations and other Aboriginal groups a way of having an impact in modern Canadian politics.
We don’t know if this will happen but it’s entirely possible that the ruling opens the door to other challenges if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
This angle of the story was conspicuously absent in media coverage this week.
Should something like this happen though that’s the exact argument that independence minded Albertans want to see to further their cause.
The media has also been using this event to paint Danielle Smith as somebody who has endorsed Alberta separatism according to the media. But in reality Danielle Smith made a point about 700,000 Albertans that could potentially not have their voice heard.
She said, "I would say that it is a single judge who's made a decision and we have now 700,000 Albertans, whether they're on the remain side or the leave side, who've said that they want to have this public debate."
The 700,000 she’s mentioning includes Thomas Lukaszuk’s Forever Canada petition. She said she’ll consult her caucus and cabinet about next steps.
She also said, "we think that there may have been an error in law made here because the duty to consult has been interpreted normally when you're talking about a specific project like a pipeline project, which is what we're doing right now in consulting on a west coast pipeline route"
The media doesn’t get why she’s saying this and why she’s bringing the Forever Canada petition into the picture. Well, Lukaszuk now wants his petition’s decision to be rendered by the Legislature. The detail here is being lost because while he’s now advocating for this, his initial application called for a referendum on the matter.
But it is within the purview of a committee to either send questions to a referendum or to a vote of the Legislature. That’s why Lukaszuk is now angling for this approach. The media is not telling Albertans that this week.
There has already been a push for “the separatists” to start their own party. The independence supporters are already asking for the government to call a referendum.
This means one of two things for Danielle Smith.
First, the government could call a vote to answer whether or not Alberta should remain in Canada as per the Forever Canada petition. With the question: Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?
The other option is that the government appeals the decision, slow walks, and the grass roots replace Danielle Smith through the same methods they replaced Jason Kenney. Replace her with who? Someone who is more independent minded.
This would require major work as the UCP Constitution would need to be amended since the Constitution requires members and MLAs support a united Canada.
This is why the media has made this the story this week. They will focus on any aspect of the story with the end goal of harming the UCP government while being dishonest about all of it.
The reality is that presently less than a third of Albertans are firm voters to leave Canada in an independence referendum. The media could ignore the story or do some actual reporting without embellishment instead.
But without any active campaign on the federalist side and continual stoking of the fire it is safe to say that the justice system and media this week has created more Alberta independence supporters or separatists in their view.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

CBC called out for role in prank interviews of Kamloops residential school grave critics

Two women say they were targeted by a CBC- and APTN-produced comedy series that conducted prank interviews with people who have expressed controversial opinions about Canada's residential schools.
Frances Widdowson and Lindsay Shepherd, two public figures who have been critical of the coverage of possible unmarked graves at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School site in B.C., shared social media posts this week detailing how they say they were tricked into prank interviews.
Both say they were the targets of the comedy series Northland Tales. According to the website of the Indigenous Screen Office, a national advocacy and funding organization serving First Nations, Inuit and Métis creators of screen content, Northland Tales is an "unscripted, half-hour comedy series where an Indigenous activist trio uses pranks as a form of social action," in the vein of Borat and The Yes Men.
In May 2021, the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation shared that preliminary findings from a ground-penetrating radar survey indicated there could be around 200 potential unmarked graves on the grounds of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School.
Widdowson has referred to the discovery of suspected graves in Kamloops as "hysteria" and that the only way to know whether there are remains at the site is through excavation. In 2022, Widdowson was fired as a professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, partly over her criticism of what she called "dominant residential school narratives." An arbitrator later ruled that the decision to fire Widdowson was disproportionate, even if her conduct did warrant discipline.
She told CBC News she was approached in March of this year and asked to be a part of a docuseries by an organization that called itself Forge Media.
Widdowson said that earlier this month, they paid to fly her to Vancouver, where she was told she would be interviewed about how historical figures were portrayed. She said she was also told an actor dressed as Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, would join her and talk about how difficult it is to portray him and other historical figures in this day and age.
Widdowson said the interviewer in the studio was dressed in a very strange outfit and a blond wig and asked her very softball questions. Somewhere between the half-hour and hour mark of the interview, she said, two "Aboriginal" men walked in and "dumped a whole bunch of children's shoes" on the coffee table in front of her.
She said at that point, the interviewer and the two men began glaring at her: "And that's when I knew that not only were they trying to sabotage the interview, that the interviewer was in on it, and is all part of some kind of setup," she said.
Widdowson said she started asking if the shoe dump was an attempt to make a comparison with the Holocaust, and whether that was appropriate. She said she tried to talk to them but they just glared, so she decided to use her cellphone to livestream the experience to social media.
She said when she began livestreaming, some of the people involved in the interview walked out of the studio. Widdowson said she continued to interrogate one of the people involved, asking him what this was all about, who was paying for it and how much it cost. She said he told her it was a social experiment, and that Indigenous people were paying for it.
Neither APTN nor any of the producers connected with Northland Tales could be reached for comment. Chuck Thompson, a spokesperson for CBC, confirmed that the comedy series Northland Tales is in early production for CBC Entertainment and APTN, but that "CBC News and APTN News have no involvement in this production or prior knowledge of it."
Shepherd said on X she was also deceived by "social activists in an elaborate scheme." Last year, Shepherd was fired from her job as a communications officer for the B.C. Conservative caucus following a post on X in which she called the orange survivors' flag — which honours residential school survivors — a "disgrace" and a "fake flag."
On Tuesday, Shepherd posted on X that she had been interviewed in February by a production group "with what I now know has a fake name and fake identities" about her book A Day with Sir John A. She said the group connected her with a fake company, which she said hired her to perform consulting work for them.
"We had what I now know were fake meetings, fake documents, fake commercial shoot, fake prototype of a Sir John A. collectible. Then in a second filmed interview last week, they turned on me, and it was revealed to have all been a setup in order to demonize Sir John A. and smear me. It turns out this is a taxpayer-funded CBC and APTN project."
Conservative B.C. MP Aaron Gunn wrote that the interviews were "something you would expect from a university fraternity, not a taxpayer-funded broadcaster."
Conservative Ontario MP Melissa Lantsman posted that Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller "has some questions to answer," and that the CBC was "using your tax dollars to smear the very country it was built to serve, running deceptive sting operations."
It's reprehensible for the CBC to be using tax dollars to drum up controversy over a hugely controversial topic in the name of comedy.
Supplementals:

https://x.com/AaronGunn/status/2055036695356338197

Quote of the Week

“Every member of Parliament in the country uses Signal, precisely because they believe it is safe (confidential) to use. No one wants Gary reading their messages.” Conservative MP Jacob Mantle on the proposed lawful access bill C22 by Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree

Word of the Week

quash - to suppress or extinguish summarily and completely

How to Find Us

Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

x.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Quashed Privacy
Teaser: Alberta and Ottawa continue to advance a west coast pipeline, VPNs could leave Canada over Bill C-22, and a judge quashes the Alberta separatist petition. Also, a CBC funded comedy show fakes interviews over residential schools.
Production Code: WC-468-2026-05-16
Recorded Date: May 16, 2026
Release Date: May 17, 2026
Duration: 1:03:50
Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX