Tricia outlines a “modelling chain” of distinct but linked tools: climate models provide temperature and precipitation inputs, which feed land‑surface or hydrology models that estimate bulk water supply from rain and snow before human use. Groundwater and groundwater–surface water interactions are often modelled separately because of their complexity and long timescales, while hydraulic models simulate how water moves through rivers, enabling flood forecasting and floodplain mapping that influence insurance rates. At the end of the chain, water resource management models (“worms”) incorporate human interventions such as licences, irrigation withdrawals, reservoirs, and releases to estimate post‑use water supply. These models are usually run sequentially rather than fully coupled, with each step increasing in resolution to translate global climate signals into local hydrologic and hydraulic predictions.

The discussion then turns to specific processes and uncertainties, including glaciers, groundwater, and land‑use change. Tricia notes that the contribution of glacier melt to systems like the Bow and South Saskatchewan Rivers is complex and only recently being studied in detail, with earlier climate models underestimating glacier loss because they missed feedbacks such as wildfire ash darkening ice and accelerating melt. She explains that glaciers are crucial for headwater supply and that their melt feeds both rivers and groundwater, affecting late‑summer baseflows and water temperature, which are vital for aquatic ecosystems. Land‑use changes such as logging are incorporated by dynamically updating land‑cover data from satellite imagery so hydrology models can adjust runoff responses, while other cumulative effects (like fish health) are handled by separate ecological models that use hydrologic outputs such as flow and temperature. Throughout, Tricia stresses that model choice and complexity must be “fit for purpose,” balancing computational limits and the need for timely decisions, especially for operational tasks like flood forecasting.

A major theme is the shift from traditional “standards‑based” engineering (e.g., designing for a single “1‑in‑100‑year” event) toward adaptive, risk‑based management that embraces uncertainty envelopes and integrates environmental, economic, social, and cultural risk. Tricia argues that decision‑makers must choose where within a range of possible flows to design, based on their tolerance for being wrong and the consequences for communities and infrastructure, and that this inherently political and social process cannot be automated away by AI. She calls for a federal water policy framework that centers water in governance and economic planning, asking what the “resiliency threshold” of Canada’s water supply is rather than aiming merely for “sustainability,” given that basins like the South Saskatchewan are already oversubscribed and in deficit. This includes scrutinizing new industrial developments (from oil and gas to data centres) through a water‑availability lens and recognizing water as the limiting factor in many sectors.

The conversation also highlights serious data and governance gaps. Tricia explains that many social and local water uses are poorly captured: licences are modelled at their full legal volume because actual consumptive use is not monitored, return flows from irrigation are often unmeasured, and tributary and small‑stream uses can be invisible to models.

If your body were as sliced and diced as our water system is—how do you think you would fare?

Now consider, you are ~60% water.

Seems timely to revisit Bob Morrison and I’s interview from last September with Dr. Brad Stelfox (who also appeared in The Harms of Coal Mining), a zoologist and land-use scientist who has spent over 35 years developing cumulative effects models that integrate overlapping land uses—such as roads, agriculture, oil and gas, and forestry—to show how they reshape landscapes in Alberta and beyond. His work focuses on linking social, economic, and environmental dimensions, quantifying benefits like jobs and royalties alongside impacts on natural capital, including biodiversity, soil carbon, and water quality and quantity. Stelfox argues that most models used by industry and government chase “win‑win‑win” scenarios and fail to honestly represent trade‑offs, leading to a narrative that Alberta can expand all land uses without compromising water or biodiversity—something he says has never been achieved anywhere. He points to evidence of profound losses in natural capital since Alberta became a province, with rapid ongoing degradation of water, biodiversity, and soil carbon.

In other words, Alberta and Canada need to adopt a “Less i$ more” economic model: where more land (water, air, and biodiversity) is restored rather than developed.

Brad, Bob, and I discuss how Alberta’s growing population and sharply increased per‑capita resource use have driven extensive externalization of natural capital, meaning environmental costs are left out of economic and political decision‑making.He explains that humans and land use inevitably consume water, carbon, and biodiversity, and that Alberta is no longer just drawing on “interest” from these systems but is cutting deeply into the ecological “capital.” Using native mammals as an example, he estimates that pre‑European times they made up about 99.2% of biomass, whereas today Alberta has perhaps only 4% of its pre‑European native mammal biodiversity, with most biomass now in humans, livestock, and pets. Water quality and quantity have also deteriorated, with many prairie creeks ploughed over or converted to irrigation canals and parents reluctant to let children play in creeks due to health risks, especially in southern Alberta. He characterizes Alberta’s prevailing mindset as “me here now,” focused on short‑term economic growth and local interests rather than long‑term landscape health or the well‑being of future generations.

The discussion then zooms in on southern Alberta’s landscapes and water. Stelfox describes a west‑to‑east gradient where eastern lowlands have already lost most of their biodiversity and water quality, leaving little remaining natural capital to lose, while foothills and mountains—especially the eastern slopes—are now at greatest risk. These high‑elevation areas function as “water towers,” accumulating snow and releasing critical spring flows that support fish, wildlife, and all downstream land uses, including logging, agriculture, mining, oil and gas, transportation, and residential development. He estimates that Alberta receives roughly 700–800 billion cubic meters of precipitation annually, with about three‑quarters evaporating and 130–150 billion cubic meters flowing through rivers and aquifers, forming the basis of all land uses. Yet these headwaters are being incrementally eroded by expanding acreages, roads, recreation, cattle, and especially intensive logging, which alters hydrology, increases sediment, reduces soil organics, and undermines aquifer recharge. He argues that current forestry practices diverge from best management practices on paper and are not adequately enforced, and he questions why mining, off‑highway vehicles, and riparian residential development are allowed in such critical headwater zones.

Finally, the conversation turns to policy, economics, and the difficulty of change. Stelfox notes that the Alberta Land Stewardship Act was intended to sit above other legislation and force explicit trade‑off discussions about limits on water withdrawals, timber harvests, fossil fuel extraction, livestock numbers, and even population growth, but these ideas became politically unpalatable once industry and government realized they implied constraints on economic expansion. He observes that all major land‑use sectors—forestry, energy, agriculture, transportation, residential, recreation—have experienced exponential growth yet still see their current scale as “unacceptably too small,” planning for further expansion under a growth‑driven economic model that systematically depletes natural capital. I connect biodiversity loss to Indigenous community impacts and Species At Risk (such as caribou and trout), arguing that these are indicators of ecological and ultimately human risk, and I highlight how extensive piped‑water systems around Lethbridge and Edmonton show that society is already overdrawing its “water bank account.”

A Less i$ more economy is needed, where industrial sites and access ways no longer serving us are re-naturalized for ecosystem function at scale across so-called Alberta and Canada.

You need to help Brad, Bob, and me create the political will for the polluter to finally pay.

The discussion then turns to how climate change is disrupting traditional insurance models and data, with Markham citing industry reports that centuries of actuarial data are being undermined by frequent “once in a thousand year” extreme weather events. Derek confirms that climate change is increasing both the frequency and severity of events, forcing insurers to rework models and reconsider whether and how to continue offering certain coverages. He explains how insurers use loss ratios, expense ratios, and combined ratios to assess profitability, and how catastrophic years push combined ratios above 100%, meaning insurers lose money. Derek outlines different insurance needs, using farmers as an example: they require property coverage, sewer backup, crop hail insurance (sometimes including wildfire), and possibly groundwater coverage, illustrating how water-related risks intersect with agriculture.

Our conversation explores practical impacts on homeowners and commercial clients, including rising premiums and coverage limitations in high-risk areas such as floodplains along Calgary’s Elbow River and hail-prone regions like Medicine Hat and Red Deer. Derek notes that brokers have become more proactive in ensuring clients have sewer backup and at least some overland water coverage, even when full flood insurance is unavailable or unaffordable, while commercial property owners are increasingly attentive to severe weather risks, though not all explicitly link them to climate change. He explains reinsurance as “insurance for insurance companies,” provided by global reinsurers who are highly attuned to climate risk and can pressure domestic insurers to limit coverage in certain geographies, contributing to higher premiums and tighter terms. Markham and Derek discuss an emerging inflection point where rising premiums (e.g., a 50% increase after hail damage) and affordability crises may finally force consumers to connect climate change with personal financial risk, potentially prompting demands for “build back better” approaches and government involvement.

In the latter part of the conversation, we broaden the lens to systemic issues: government backstopping of major events like the 2013 floods, stalled efforts to create a national flood insurance program, and the growing complexity of wildfire and cyber risks. I raise mitigation strategies such as cloud seeding in Alberta’s “hail alley” between Calgary and Red Deer, and Derek explains the use of silver iodide to reduce hail size, while noting scalability limits and possible climate-change-driven storm intensity that outpaces response capacity. They then connect water, pollution, and energy: Markham and I highlight conflicts over water use between oil and gas, agriculture, and cities under worsening drought, and Derek warns about selenium pollution from coal mines in the Oldman River system, stressing that ongoing pollution is typically excluded from commercial insurance under absolute pollution exclusions, leaving taxpayers and communities exposed. I underscore that Alberta’s regulatory framework and reduced inspection capacity mean polluter-pay principles and remediation laws are not adequately enforced, while the province continues to allow the use and pollution of roughly four million barrels of fresh water per day for oil production, raising serious questions about doubling production amid severe drought and cumulative contamination.

Want more?

Listen to Bob Sandford explain the global water bankruptcy we are facing, his report for the UN came out in January 2026.

Public Interest Alberta’s “Together NO!” campaign is ready for you!

Good Afternoon Nicoladies, Nicoladdies, and anyone in between,

The Public Interest Alberta (PIA)’s referendum campaign—opposing Smith’s United Conservative Party of Alberta waste-of-taxpayer-time-and-money, “Alberta Next” MAGA North agenda—has officially launched! Find ways to join today at albertareferendum2026.org. Not to be confused with the Government of Alberta’s propaganda referendum website at albertareferendum2026.ca—Coincidence?

On PIA’s website you may:

• Get your special ballots from Elections Alberta, free yourself from the 10-paper-ballot-per-person nightmare that will be referendum day: Monday, October 19. A reel from me about this!

• Pledge your vote here.

• RSVP for the Tuesday, September 1, 6:30 pm campaign launch event in Calgary at the Royal Canadian Legion #1 (116 7 Ave SE, Calgary, AB T2G 0H5).

• Volunteer in whatever way suits you best!

• Donate to the campaign, let’s beat the separatist Third Party Advertiser’s support! Your grassroots donation is the way.

• Learn more about why to choose to remain a Province of Canada and Vote NO! to the other nine questions on the FAQ page.

• Reach out to me if you’d like to be an area lead, wish to help with outreach, or if you have ideas for events to attend!

Listen to former MLA and Environment Minister for the Alberta NDP, Shannon Phillips explain why you should participate in PIA’s campaign:

Get your STAY IN CANADA. NO TO THE NINE. sign!

Alberta’s Voice STAY IN CANADA. NO TO THE NINE. campaign is well underway, please pick up a lawn sign here and pledge your support!

Send Pete Packing

ICYMI, Pete Hoekstra’s agenda for Washington was on full display on Real Talk with Ryan Jespersen. Thankfully, you can SendPetePacking.ca for it! A short from Pete Hoekstra on Real Talk

MARK YOUR CALENDAR: Saturday, October 17 is the next AFL FightBackNow.ca Day-of-Action!

The Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) is facilitating another provincial-wide day of action like May 29th! This event will be a great opportunity to finalize your Referendum Day plans to help others vote NO to Premier Smith’s United Conservative Party of Alberta’s MAGA north agenda. You didn’t want any of this before May 2023, you have said “NO” ever since to all of it. Let’s put the separatist, anti-rights, divisive agenda to bed. Once and for all!

TAKE ACTION AGAINST AI DATA CENTRES

I’ve been invited to speak in my home town of St. Albert on August 22 from 1-3 pm at the St. Albert Curling Rink, if you’re in the area, please come by! For those in Calgary, please join the Alberta Anti AI group at 1 pm on Saturday, Aug 22 at City Hall.

Eventbrite FREE Tix HERE!

Federally, sign the House of Commons petition to BAN ON AI DATA CENTRES:

Sign HoC Petition #7427

Provincially, write Environment Minster Grant Hunter to BAN AI DATA CENTRES:

STOP AI with Alberta Talks

Municipally, call on your city councillor to BAN AI DATA CENTRES:

StopTheAIdatacentre.ca in Calgary

Send the Education Minister a Message RE: Fossil-Fueled Wildfires

No more polluting or stifling education!

Follow the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in condemning Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides’ Bill 25. “The minister told the Edmonton Journal that he also expects teachers not to speak about political and social issues not covered in the curriculum, including Alberta's separatist movement.” Nicolaides expects teachers not to speak about the most important action Albertans will take on October 19, 2026 in the history of this so-called province. He is creating a crisis for teachers rather than promoting a heathy climate for debate around key areas of concern for all kids.

Thank Nicolaides for Extreme Wildfires

If you or your family has been displaced by the wildfires in Canada this summer, thank Demetrios Nicolaides for promoting fossil fuel expansion over climate education, and freshwater restoration.

Send For Our Kids’ Polluting Education Letter to the Minister:

Send a letter to Nicolaides

To: admin@heritagefest.ca

cc: info@edjfed.org

Re: Disqualify the Israel Pavilion from Heritage Days

To Whom It May Concern,

This Instagram video of the revisionist history being supported by Edmonton’s Heritage Days festival at the Israel pavilion is despicable in three ways:

1. The pavilion personnel, provided by the Jewish Federation of Edmonton, were chanting “There is no Palestine”, when Palestine (estimated to be more than 5,000 years old) predates Israel, created in 1948. These chants are no doubt intended to justify the ongoing occupation of Palestine and genocide of Palestinians being carried out by Israel and the United States. It is like singing there is no Iran, irony intended to relate to the second issue.

2. The T-shirts of the people chanting these degrading statements were also covered with lies. There is absolutely zero evidence that that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) massacred 40,000+ Iranians in the Mossad-led protests which erupted across Iran in January of 2026. Protests, no doubt, intended to provide cover for the illegal and unprovoked aggression carried out by the US-Israel war machine on February 28, 2026, officially resulted in 3,117 fatalities. Here’s an image of the January 2, 2026 Tweet by Former U.S. Secretary of State and CIA Director Mike Pompeo—tagging President Trump, Marco Rubio, and the current CIA director—explaining his support for “every Mossad agent walking beside” the Iranians protesting.

1. The ongoing genocide in Palestine, expanded into Lebanon now, should not be supported by the City of Edmonton in any way. This pavilion should not have been included in the first place, for these reasons. The Jewish Federation of Edmonton proved this to you in the Instagram video capturing their lies and hate.

As a person born and raised in Edmonton, I remember Heritage Days being a place to celebrate cultures and feel a sense of shared love for humanity. Allowing hate speech, propaganda-lined clothing, and inviting institutions which provide ongoing cover for the genocide of Palestinian or Lebanese people, war crimes perpetrated in Iran, or the “Greater Israel” agenda in any form, is the last thing Heritage Days should be supporting today. It’s nearly three years since October 7, 2023, triggering calls from the majority, 2/3, of Canadians wanting a ceasefire and end to the moral outrage in Palestine: shame.

Make a public apology and withdraw your support for an Israeli Pavilion at Heritage Days.

Until the Greater Israel project is put to rest, the genocide and displacement stops, and reparations are agreed upon.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, P. Geoph

Calgary, Alberta POSTAL CODE

In response, we explores what should stop and what should replace current practices. We criticize expanding irrigation and building more dams in a context of declining natural flows and climate‑driven aridity, noting that empty reservoirs cannot solve drought and that engineering approaches cannot “outrun” climate change. We call for halting new coal mining in the Eastern Slopes, curbing excessive clear‑cutting, reforming forestry in both working forests and protected areas, and rethinking urban and industrial expansion into wildlife corridors and sensitive groundwater‑dependent ecosystems. I argue that all new fossil fuel development should cease, with industry redirected toward abandonment, decommissioning, and large‑scale restoration, including addressing hundreds of thousands of oil and gas sites and massive oil sands tailings ponds. We also highlight problematic technological “fixes,” from carbon capture and storage to atmospheric chemical injection by insurers, as examples of trying to control rather than work with nature, often creating new risks.

The conversation then turns to solutions and pathways forward, balancing individual and collective responsibility. On the personal side, Alex uses Calgary’s water‑main rupture to illustrate how simple behavioural changes—like skipping one toilet flush—can scale to millions of liters saved, while I contrast this with the vast volumes of water sent daily to oil sands tailings to show the importance of scale. Collectively, we stress the need for courageous land‑use planning that embeds cumulative‑effects science, ecological thresholds, and the value of water, space, and biodiversity, rather than entrenching status quo economic uses like timber, beef, and motorized recreation. We advocate for large‑scale, ecologically meaningful restoration—beyond “postage stamp” projects—across the eastern slopes and South Saskatchewan River basin, including removing roads, restoring beavers and wetlands, and supporting regenerative agriculture, while creating meaningful jobs for youth and reorienting environmental graduates toward repair rather than further development.

Finally, we discuss how to organize and build the political and cultural will to act. Kevin recounts how opposition to opening the Eastern Slopes to coal mining united ranchers, Indigenous communities, hunters, fishers, urban environmentalists, and people across the political spectrum, demonstrating the power of collective stewardship of common land. Building on this, he proposes a “macro” strategy of reclaiming the narrative from vested interests—e.g., resisting misframing climate‑driven fires as forest‑management failures—and a “micro” strategy of choosing one headwater sub‑drainage to fully restore as a proof of concept for water security, biodiversity, and landscape health. Lorne and Colin emphasize bioregional organizing, knitting together local leaders and existing groups in each major headwater watershed, engaging with tools like Alberta’s nature strategy survey and South Saskatchewan Regional Plan review while also building grassroots, basin‑scale voices that can steward public lands. The conversation closes with Kevin and Lorne underscoring that the eastern slopes are a gift from previous generations, part of Albertans’ “DNA,” and that honouring this legacy means not squandering it but embracing stewardship, recognizing that every land‑use choice is a water decision, and focusing one’s efforts where they can be most effective.

One outstanding question lingers: How far is too far?

According to the Government of Alberta.

Arlene traces the evolution from the Northwest Irrigation Act to Alberta’s Water Resources Act and then the Water Act, noting that groundwater was brought under Crown ownership and FITFIR in 1962, replacing the old rule of capture. The Water Act introduced major river basin divisions and approved water management plans—currently for the South Saskatchewan, Battle, and Milk River basins—which must be considered in key regulatory decisions like transfers. It also created statutory authorizations: household and agricultural exemptions with quantified annual volumes, and licences that grant diversion rights for specified purposes (municipal, irrigation, commercial, habitat enhancement, recreation, water conservation objectives, and others) typically on renewable 10‑year terms, while older licences have no expiry and are easily renewed. New licences can include water conservation objective (WCO) conditions that allow the director to restrict diversions when flows fall below set thresholds, whereas older licences may have in‑stream objectives (IOs) that are generally less protective. Arlene contrasts both WCOs and IOs with scientifically determined in‑stream flow needs (IFNs), arguing that WCOs and IOs are more politically set and often below IFN levels, limiting ecosystem protection.

Assessing the Water Act against an idealized water law, Arlene finds major shortcomings. She notes that while there are some tools to curb impacts for new licences, existing licences are strongly protected, there is no expropriation power for water rights, and cancellation is only possible when rights have gone unused for three years with no reasonable prospect of use. The Act offers only limited mechanisms to secure sufficient in‑stream flows, does not recognize or secure Indigenous water rights, and does not integrate quantity and quality regulation, conjunctive management of surface and groundwater, formal watershed governance, clear rules for alternative sources (wastewater, rainwater, stormwater, saline water), or climate change mitigation and adaptation—though the government is proposing amendments on some of these fronts. Household use has the highest priority, partially securing basic human needs. Overall, Arlene would grade the Act a “D” and says she would not pass it, arguing Alberta could have moved away from FITFIR toward more equitable systems like those in Saskatchewan, Australia, and New Zealand, but powerful sectors—oil and gas, municipalities, and agriculture—resisted change. In practice, Davin McIntosh—a water rights consultant and broker who specializes in facilitating water transfers in Alberta, with prior experience as a planning and municipal development lawyer and involvement in a significant proportion of water transfers in the Bow River Basin and Southern Alberta—points out that priority calls under FITFIR are rarely made, with Alberta preferring voluntary reductions to avoid cutting off junior users, especially municipalities whose licences are technically subject to FITFIR but whose drinking water cannot realistically be curtailed.

Davin then explains why and how water transfers were introduced. As recognition grew in the 1980s–1990s that full exercise of long‑standing rights could push rivers below environmentally sustainable levels, the Water Act added transfer provisions, and a 2007 moratorium on new licences in many areas made transfers the main mechanism for reallocating water. He describes an eight‑step process:

1. finding a suitable right (difficult because rights are rarely advertised and cancellation risk discourages signalling non‑use),

2. negotiating price and contracts despite uncertainty of approval,

3. confirming the licence is in good standing (including compliance checks and sometimes costly reconstruction of works to match old plans),

4. submitting a paper application,

5. responding to extensive and discretionary requests for information from the director,

6. publishing mandatory public notice and handling statements of concern, possible public meetings, and finally a decision. He highlights the director’s broad discretion and evolving, often unwritten policies—such as disallowing transfers “around a corner” in a Y‑shaped tributary, apportionment rules limiting how much can move from a mainstem to a tributary,

7. partial good‑standing determinations, and

8. the 10% conservation holdback that created government WCO licences but is now proposed to be scrapped due to limited overall transfer volumes.

With only about 400 transfers approved since 2007, roughly half being arm’s‑length, the conservation holdback has not significantly boosted in‑stream protection.

Throughout the discussion, we stress that enforcement of ecological needs and federal powers has been weak. Arlene notes that IFNs are not directly recognized in the Water Act, that WCOs and IOs fall short of IFNs, and that private in‑stream flow licences are not currently allowed, though government can and has issued WCO licences to itself.

More water lessons within the Water In Southern Alberta miniseries.

Let’s begin with our 2022 understanding of the message in this clip (focusing on 0:53-1:18). Chris continued with, “you’re providing the opposite point of view, the one where 9 out of 9 oppose. But because you’re not even in the ‘the Council’ they don’t see you as the tenth person worth listening to.” When Chris is right, he is right. This was the crux of the issue at the time. My opinions—and those of anyone willing to look behind the curtain with me—were dismissed as unpopular and therefore not worth investing in. Differed maintenance was the majority rule and continues to be the industry rule today. More on this to follow.

My 2026 interpretation of this scene, however, begins at 0:00 and has much deeper meaning than either Chris or I understood at the time: the country of choice to survive the zombie apocalypse—in a US film—is Israel. Mossad agents relay threats to a 10-person council in Israel who decided—beginning in 1973—to make a change. If they all agree there isn’t a threat, they would create a threat and fight anyway. This 1973 decision—to not let other nations challenge Israel’s hegemony ever again—is coming to a head, and the majority rule is that Israel is the one to blame, not Iran, and certainly not Palestinians. And what is the Israeli council doing with this information?

It seems like they’re treating us like zombies, fighting us all with their: illegal wars (and genocide); AI data centres (pipelines, carbon capture and storage, oil and gas expansion); two-tier healthcare; private misleading education; private service and private agendas. Threating functioning societies and a livable planet. Anyway, back to, let’s call it, “The Tenth Person Principle” (TTPP).

In a world of a failing majority rule—where the economy no longer represent our reality—TTPP is a crucial counter-strategy. When the head of the system is the issue, the woke, not zombie majority, need to present—and act upon—a different way forward. It’s not enough to say “no” to their agenda. It’s not enough to present them with a different strategy. Instead, seeking out and providing alternative council is needed to combat the energy and water crisis. No longer relying on the corporate and political class who created this crisis to begin with. TTPP calls on us not only to present the risks but to take the reins in executing the alternative plans we know will lead us to safety: land stewardship enforcement while developing a clean, local food and public service system for the common good.

A great example of a failing majority rule, and need for TTPP to rein, is playing out with Alberta’s First In Time First In Right (FITFIR) freshwater licensing system. FITFIR is a priority-system based on when a water licence was issued. Meaning, the first person to have capitalize on water here won, and so on. Water for you and your family is NOT the priority, and First Nations communities come LAST. Further, the system includes a “use it or lose it” clause. Meaning, if you decide to conserve water, not make use of it but rather let it stay in the system, you stand to lose your share. The system does not distinguish between borrowing or removing. Water that reenters our sewage treatment system, for example, was borrowed water. But the 310 billion liters—added to the 1.7 trillion liter tailings ponds or injected into productive formations in 2024 alone—is never expected to return, at no cost to the user. TTPP calls on us to build and enforce a water system which aims to restore water quality and security for all. It is not enough to fight changes to the Water Act, imposed by this Alberta Government, that further exasperate its inequity.

A clip from Water In Southern Alberta, Episode 3, “The Laws and Market”, Arlene Kwasniak explains the gaps in Alberta’s Water Act and FITFIR system.

The second area to invoke TTPP is to oppose the mandate of the leaders in the fossil fuel industry. For decades they have demanded more and more from the taxpayer, while differing maintenance and causing mountains of environmental liabilities. Their plan includes a fantasy solution to expansion: carbon capture and storage will never be deployed at a meaningful scale, and even if it were it doesn’t address systemwide methane venting, flaring, and leakage.

What’s worse, these heads are now actively destroying the global refinery system. First, they have been reducing Russia’s refined capacity to the point where they have had to limit diesel exports and now banned gasoline exports through 2026. Then they closed the Strait of Hormuz, reducing refined products by another ~10%. And now, they are removing another ~10% by creating a blockade in the Red Sea. The USA has taken advantage of these restrictions, selling almost every last drop in the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) system, “If inventories slip below tank bottoms at enough facilities, the WTI delivery mechanism itself starts to come under strain. That is not a theoretical risk anymore. It is the reality sitting in the data right now, and the market is pricing accordingly.” Meanwhile, their expansion plans have more limits than ever before:

1. Reservoir quality and access is depreciating: more resources, like freshwater, are needed to extract less valuable reserves.

2. More sensitive habitats, causing greater environmental harm, are what’s next to be exploited.

3. Water bankruptcy is on the horizon.

4. Supply chain limits, such as a lack of gas turbines until 2030.

5. Private investment capital unavailable: the tech bros have joined the fossil fuel companies in being cashflow negative now!

6. Alberta oil companies themselves doubt their ability to deliver.

Where is the courage within our political and corporate class to call out these limits and invite alternative plans to redirect us accordingly? For decades, scientists like Dr. Brad Stelfox, have been showing the cumulative impacts on the landscape and expressing the need for land stewardship laws to be enforced, at scale, where it matters most. The corporate and political class have demonstrated their allegiance to the heads of our system, despite the majority rule or their inability to deliver, and are committed to denying these realities, it seems. It is up to you and I to have the courage to be a tenth person saying, “No thank you, AND here’s what we will do instead.” Work up your solution, find allies who will improve upon them and spread the word. Embrace your ability to rebel, never doubt your desire to be woke and not a zombie for system which serves no one, not even the Israeli council.

If you enjoyed this, please follow, like, and share it!

Sandford explains the UN “global water bankruptcy” concept as a post‑crisis state where societies persistently withdraw more water than renewable flows can support, depleting natural capital such as snowpack, glaciers, wetlands, and groundwater that provide “liquid income.” The report shows that even water‑rich countries like Canada, and regions such as southern Alberta, are not immune and may be nearing water bankruptcy, prompting initiatives like the Canada Water Agency. He argues that Alberta has failed to “repay” nature through forest, watershed, and biodiversity protection, and that maladaptive responses—creating weak watershed bodies, building more dams, drilling deeper wells, and diverting rivers—temporarily mask insecurity while deepening insolvency. Nature, he says, is now “initiating foreclosure” by shutting off water, as seen in glacier loss and shrinking snow and ice, and each drained wetland or logged headwater further erodes resilience beyond what engineering can replace.

Summary continues before this news update!

WOW: Did you see Hoekstra on Ryan Jespersen’s Real Talk?

With water bankruptcy—and the West Texas Intermediate system collapse on the horizon—can you believe what is coming out of Pete Hoekstra’s mouth?

Frequency of Contact with Alberta Premier:

Admits that he talks to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith “maybe once every three or four weeks” and speaks with her representatives in Ottawa “at least every week.”

Lack of Expertise on Canadian Perspectives:

States: “I’m not an expert on Canadian citizens or why they think the way that they do or what drives them and those kinds of things.” This is Pete’s job.

Acknowledgment of the “No Need for Canada” Position:

Confirms: “He says we don’t need Canada” — acknowledging that the president has made this statement on the record.

The Sales Approach:

Expects the Canadian provinces to “put on your sales hat” and actively pitch why buying from Canada is beneficial, rather than expecting automatic trade relationships.

SIGN THIS: Send Pete Packing!

Bob and Water Bankruptcy continued

Looking ahead, Sandford urges Alberta to formally acknowledge water bankruptcy risk and adopt transparent, fair rules for sharing scarcity, with participatory processes and strong social safety nets—conditions he says are absent under the current government. He links water security directly to food security and broader sustainable and circular economies, noting that water is often the only issue warring or divided groups can agree on, citing examples from the Middle East, the Northwest Territories, and transboundary agreements with Alberta. He highlights emerging climate science from James Hansen suggesting another El Niño and accelerated warming that could push global temperatures toward 2°C in the 2030s, with Canada warming at twice the global rate, implying severe drought, reduced snowpack, year‑round wildfire risk, and deep social and economic disruption in Alberta by 2027 and beyond. He likens the current moment to “Munich 1939,” arguing that Alberta is unprepared for three degrees of warming, with unpredictable precipitation, concurrent floods and droughts, and increasingly manipulated water licensing.

Politically, Sandford and other speakers connect water to a broader project of “rescuing, reviving, and restoring democracy” in Alberta, suggesting that the looming threat of water bankruptcy could galvanize citizens across issues like education, healthcare, and food security without relying on existing political parties.

TAKE ACTION

Join Public Interest Alberta’s, “No thanks. We choose hope.” Campaign!

Join "No thanks. We Choose Hope."

Follow the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society of Northern Alberta’s and the Yellowhead Institute’s lead in sending a letter to the Privy Council Office to stop the changes proposed in the “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada” paper.

Here’s my letter as a guide

To: engagement@pco-bcp.gc.ca

Cc: ministre-minister@ec.gc.ca, infonab@cpaws.org, infosab@cpaws.org

To whom it may concern,

Negatively impacting nature is not the way to “Nation Build”, especially for a country where nature is a core part of Canadian identity. Take CPAWS Northern and Southern Alberta advice for the Government of Canada:

1. Withdraw proposals to exempt projects from SARA jeopardy tests.

2. Reject the creation of “Economic Zones” that weaken federal oversight.

3. Maintain independent, transparent federal, or joint, impact assessment processes, which already provide a “one project, one review” process, without political interference.

4. Avoid increased reliance on offsetting for activities that would destroy fish habitat.

5. Strengthen, not reduce, public participation opportunities.

6. Ensure Indigenous Nations are treated as rights holders, not stakeholders.

7. Address real sources of delay: early engagement, baseline data, and proponent readiness.

8. Ensure that federal oversight remains strong in Alberta, where provincial regulatory systems have not demonstrated adequate protection of species, watersheds, or public interest.

It is now or never to decide what kind of Canada we are going to be. The one who takes responsibility for the climate crisis we’ve helped fuel or go down lying and scamming Canadians.

The only projects that are in the nation’s best interest are: 1) ecological restoration inline with SARA/land stewardship and 2) renewable, electric storage and transport system deployment.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, P. Geoph

Calgary, Alberta POSTAL CODE

This conversation from August 2024 centers on Alberta’s escalating water crisis, framed by drought conditions, failing infrastructure, and inadequate government planning and oversight. I outline recent drought impacts, including four southern Alberta communities that had to have water trucked in, and highlights the auditor general’s findings: modelling is limited to parts of the province, most basins lack conservation objectives, there is weak monitoring of water pressure and risk triggers, and enforcement of water licenses and compliance is ineffective. Bruce stress that current models assume “water in equals water out” and ignore losses from heat and evapotranspiration, and that surface water analysis is largely missing, with monitoring focused on rivers and streams rather than the full hydrological picture. We also connect Alberta’s decisions to downstream regions, noting that Alberta is effectively “the taps” for Saskatchewan and Manitoba,—not the Mississippi basin (oops!)—so local choices have far-reaching consequences.

Against this backdrop, Bruce presents his proposal for an integrated water resource preservation and restoration agency that is public, independent, apolitical, interdisciplinary, intercultural, and accountable.

Bruce’s Water Agency Framework

1. Terms of Reference: coherent initiative of social planning with an interdisciplinary approach to managing water basin resources and their uses to identify and satisfy water resource stability and sustainability sufficient to secure ecological, social, and human subsistence indefinitely given resource conflicts, external disruptions, and climate change.

2. Scope of work: to include intake, withdrawal and loss of every drop of surface water, groundwater, aquifer, relative to watershed management including; flood control, tourism, hydropower, fisheries, water quality, navigation, sand and gravel extraction, and riverbank enhancement, erosion, relocation, etc.

3. Adequate data collection and information consistent with the scope and modeling requirements.

4. Scenario modeling and analysis including climate change, extreme weather, financial and institutional risk.

5. Government and public response, input, and real time communication and information.

6. Forecast modeling consistent with sustaining food, health, safety, ecosystem, and biomass sustainability.

7. Agency accountability that ensures system integrity and optimized investment decisions, allocation of capital resources, time horizons, and project implementation and operations.

8. Communication to inform public awareness. disaster readiness, and ensure contingency plans are available for rapid disaster response, food and water security, as well as communicate cost, liability, and inherent risk in real time, consistent with global weather fluctuations of hours, days, and weeks.

9. Government and industry funding, staffing, scheduling, and accountability.

His letter calls for a 10,000‑foot, river‑basin‑wide perspective that considers future water supply under climate change, glacier loss, and increasingly extreme and erratic weather, rather than just current allocations. He argues that no one is currently modelling entire basins or systematically integrating rainfall, aquifers, usage, and ecosystem needs across agriculture, urban, recreational, and wildlife uses. The proposed agency’s terms of reference include tracking intake, withdrawal, and loss of every drop of water from mountain precipitation through snow and ice fields to river flows, recognizing that only about 25% of falling moisture becomes usable river water. It would use complex systems modelling and advances in mathematics and AI to run scenario analyses, identify failure points, and guide long‑term, province‑wide planning, funded on a multi‑decade horizon rather than political cycles.

The discussion then broadens into practical implications, governance gaps, and examples of both failure and opportunity. We describe failing and aging infrastructure, such as Calgary’s major water pipe installed 49 years ago and similar vulnerabilities in other systems, noting that promises of “hundred‑year” assets outlast the people responsible and erode accountability. We criticize fragmented watershed councils that can only advise, not veto projects like proposed Bow River dams, and point out that infrastructure‑heavy solutions are being pursued despite scientific skepticism and uncertainty about future water availability. We highlight how development, oil and gas, and gravel extraction are expanding water use in sensitive areas even as shortages loom, and how sampling is mis‑targeted—focused on rivers rather than wells where contamination and drying are actually being observed by landowners. Bruce’s experience with government responses underscores a pattern of political “feel‑good” letters that claim things are under control without engaging the urgency or substance of his proposals, reinforcing the need for public pressure and stakeholder‑driven change.

Finally, we emphasize accountability, equity, and systemic thinking about water, food, and land use. Bruce insists that all humans need water and should be treated equitably, and that agriculture, urban use, and industry must be reconsidered to reduce waste, including shifting to local food systems such as rooftop or vertical farming to cut transport and water use. Alex cites Dutch vertical gardening and local greenhouse operations as proof that low‑water, local production is feasible and could reduce emissions and pesticide use. We argue that small changes—like replacing imported strawberries with local production—can significantly alter complex models because everything is interrelated, and warn that once we alter systems (e.g., dams, clear‑cuts, urban heat islands), there is “no going back,” so interventions must be carefully evaluated for ecosystem impacts on flora, fauna, and even jet streams.

Next Up, I’ll jump ahead reshare Bob Sandford’s outlining of risks of Global Water Bankruptcy. Stay tuned!

Help me get to 500 subscribers on YouTube and 1000 here on Substack! Like and share this video.

Shannon then situates the famous “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s in a longer climate and economic context, explaining that settlers arrived during an unusually wet 15‑year period and mistook those conditions for normal, whereas tree‑ring records show that multi‑year droughts are part of the Prairie West’s long‑term climate. The 1930s crisis was intensified by three factors: lower‑than‑expected precipitation, collapsing wheat prices during the global depression, and accumulating damage from unsustainable agricultural practices such as black summer fallow, which degraded soils. We connect this to colonial policy, noting how agricultural colonization and the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 were intertwined with the Department of Indian Affairs under Duncan Campbell Scott, reserve segregation, and legal mechanisms that dispossessed Indigenous peoples and blocked their emerging agricultural success, such as among the Blackfoot in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Shannon elaborates that agricultural settlement was “tightly coupled” with Indigenous dispossession, genocidal policies, and measures like the Peasant Farming policy that forced Indigenous farmers to use outdated technology while neighbouring settlers used modern machinery, all within a broader “clearing the plains” project described by James Daschuk.

Our discussion turns to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), created in 1935 as part of Canada’s “New Deal” response to the 1930s emergency, and operating until its elimination in 2009 under Stephen Harper’s government in what some have called a “war on science.” Shannon describes PFRA’s early soil‑conservation strategy of strip farming—alternating cropped and fallowed strips to anchor topsoil—which produced unintended consequences by creating more field edges that favoured wheat stem sawflies, leading to severe pest outbreaks that caused some farmers to abandon strip farming despite ongoing soil loss. PFRA’s small‑scale water development projects, such as dugouts and stock‑watering ponds, are presented as relatively successful in providing reliable water for households, gardens, and livestock without large‑scale irrigation, whereas later large irrigation schemes were more complex. Shannon also recounts PFRA’s role in international development in northern Ghana, where Canadian expertise was exported to build water infrastructure; the project had mixed technical success but led to serious unintended health impacts due to increased water‑related diseases carried by snails and mosquitoes—risks that had not been present in the Canadian prairies—highlighting the dangers of transplanting models without local ecological and cultural knowledge.

From there, the conversation broadens to contemporary farming, irrigation, and governance. Bruce notes that many prairie farmers historically arrived with little climate knowledge, took decades to learn the land, and now face soil deterioration and micronutrient loss after a century of farming, while cultural mismatches—whether Europeans in Canada or Canadians in Africa—underscore the importance of local knowledge. Shannon explains that farms have grown larger since the 1930s, making intimate, soil‑attentive management harder, and that the elimination of PFRA and other public agricultural science capacity under neoliberal “small government” has left farmers more dependent on corporations like Monsanto, whose mandate is profit rather than public interest, thereby increasing farmer vulnerability. She traces Alberta’s irrigation history from small individual schemes to corporate and cooperative models, and then to a 1930s shift that framed irrigation as a public good to justify state investment in large infrastructure, with later efficiency gains in the 1960s–70s; nonetheless, she stresses that “you can’t build your way out” of most problems and that more infrastructure alone often creates new issues. We contrast proposals for more dams, irrigation, and even north‑south water transfers—raising concerns about species transfer and failing infrastructure like the Oldman Dam and St. Mary Reservoir—with their preference for restoring headwater forests, removing roads and industrial sites, and enhancing natural storage and habitat.

In the final part of the conversation, we explore potential paths forward. Alex advocates for wetland restoration as a low‑cost way to filter water, maintain movement to reduce sulphates and phosphates, and increase biodiversity, citing artificial wetland basins in his own community that effectively filter hill runoff before it reaches treatment plants. He and others draw parallels between past and present “New Deals,” migrant promises, and cycles of empire, industrialization, and monocropping, arguing that large machinery and annual GMO seed systems from companies like Bayer have disconnected farmers from their land and trapped them in unsustainable models, while small‑scale, greenhouse‑based local food production offers more intimate, resilient alternatives.

Check Out More from Shannon and Bruce in the Water in Southern Alberta podcast mini-series.

The conversation begins with me situating the dialogue in the context of watershed protection and headwaters stewardship in Southern Alberta, describing how a local council brought together Indigenous representatives, residents, experts, and council members to ensure landowners lead decisions about their river system. I explain that despite 20 years of local work to care for the river, the broader headwaters remain vulnerable, emphasizing that logging, coal mining, and road building damage water sources and calling for restoration of the eastern slopes as protected “taps” for regional water.

Harley introduces himself through his Blackfoot identity, explaining that he comes from the Ani people and sees himself as part of a lineage stretching back perhaps 10,000 generations, with a way of life “etched” into his being. He describes being taught that humans are not above other creation, that everything—including plants, animals, air, and even beings beyond Earth—has a spirit, and that Blackfoot teachings acknowledge “star people” or star beings who have visited Earth. Alongside this traditional upbringing, he recounts his “Canadian” education, brief work in oil and gas that he left because of its destructive impacts, and his subsequent decades in environmental consulting, where he deliberately avoided government employment and instead built private-sector initiatives like Harmony Walkers and Buffalo Rock Tipi Camp to blend Indigenous and Western science. He also serves on Alberta’s Indigenous Wisdom Advisory Panel but criticizes its focus on making oil sands appear acceptable, calling this misaligned with his values.

As the discussion deepens, Harley contrasts Indigenous land-based learning with Western education, arguing that many scientists and professionals learn about land from computers and brief field visits rather than living on the land, which he sees as “missing the whole boat.” He recounts a vision quest that led him to “save the land” as a way of saving his culture and all those generations, and he critiques how perspectives are shaped by greed, arrogance, and narrow upbringing. He is sharply critical of Western schooling and religion, calling education “one of the roots of all evil” when it transmits lies, such as teaching that Columbus “discovered” a land already inhabited, or presenting sanitized histories that erase Indigenous presence and contributions. He denounces churches as often functioning like financial institutions and “torture chambers,” rejects mythologized religious narratives, and insists that children are being failed when they are not taught the truth about history, land, and humanity’s dependence on the rest of creation.

Harley then links these critiques directly to environmental crisis and intergenerational responsibility, stressing that trees, animals, air, and water do not need humans, but humans absolutely need them. He condemns short-term, self-centered thinking focused on personal wealth, three-year returns, and material legacies while ignoring breathable air, clean water, and the broader web of life, arguing that most people are “me and ours” oriented and unwilling to look 100–200 years ahead. He describes “giving back” as a total life commitment—every day his “boots hit the floor” he is working for Mother Earth and all his relatives, not just human descendants, and he criticizes performative or minimal efforts, unpaid though his own work often is. Using stories from his childhood berry-picking in the mountains, he illustrates teachings about leaving enough for other beings, staying quiet to respect mountain spirits, and the warning that if those spirits leave, the mountains and all dependent life will suffer—contrasting this with today’s “three ring circus” of industrial activity and recreation in the headwaters that threatens to dry rivers and spark future “water wars.”

In closing, Harley asserts that Mother Earth will survive and reorganize without humans, as she has before, and warns that if humanity continues on its current path, nature will eventually “flush the toilet of man,” a force no wealth, science, or military can stop. He expresses that he personally has no hope under present conditions but invites others to prove him wrong by changing, emphasizing that the first step is truth—especially in education—through revising curricula to correct myths about figures like Columbus and Cortez and acknowledging that colonial powers had no legitimate right to claim Indigenous lands.

Follow and Support: Harley’s legacy lives on in his son, Trevor Bastien

The Surest Way to Block Open-Pit Coal Mining

Join our Piikani Partners in asserting their constitutional aboriginal right to healthfully consume fish from their traditional waters of the Crowsnest and Oldman Rivers.

Support Trevor Bastien's Legal Effort

In case you missed it, Premier Smith, Gary Demasi (Vice President of data center development & strategy at Meta), Nate Glubish (Alberta's Minister of Technology and Innovation), RJ Sigurdson (Alberta's Minister of Affordability and Utilities), and Alanna Hnatiw Mayor of Sturgeon County) announced a new AI data Centre near my home town—St. Albert, in Sturgeon County—at a Calgary Stampede event this week: Danielle Smith announces deal with Meta to build new AI data centre in Alberta.

Thank you to for allowing me to share my concerns with resistors from all over the globe:

Here’s what Meta and Smith had to say—with some Truth Before Reconciliation!:

• Sturgeon County, Alberta is identified as home to Meta’s newest data center, their first in Canada and largest guinea pig facility outside of the US.

• A 2.9 million square foot facility (or 33 CFL football fields, hat tip to Brandi Morin) representing an investment of more than 13 billion Canadian dollars.

• Meta is hoping to toe in with an itty bitty 1 gW—like adding one million homes in terms of power usage to an area with 3500 residents—and expects future large-scale expansion.

• The Government of Alberta (GOA) announces SUBSIDIES, the annual Data Centre Community Action Grants program, via local nonprofits.

• Use of water-efficient closed loop liquid cooling system with dry cooling requiring no operational water for cooling. Here is a great article explaining this system is not truly closed, will use excess power to expel excess heat, and cause extreme evaporation. And this system just failed in Wyoming courtesy of Meta last week! Adding a bacteria to the water: Meta AI Data Center Linked To Rare Bacteria In City’s Water System.

• Goal to be water positive by 2030, restoring more water than consumed in local watersheds partnering with ALUS and local farmers to conserve 200 acres of grasslands, trees and wetlands in the North Saskatchewan River watershed. Conserving is not restoring water, rather ending fossil fuel expansion, cleaning up and restoring well, pipeline, and facility sites is.

• Suggests a very high number of jobs which will be mostly short-lived related to the construction phase.

Government of Alberta Commitments:

• New digital infrastructure connecting Alberta to broader North American networks via the Cloud Act. That’s right, your data will be completely accessible to the Trump Regime.

• Albertans could see a reduction of up to 6% on the transmission portion of their utility bill IF the Greenlight project proceeds. Meta is NOT responsible to making the Greenlight happen. And by the way Greenlight is simply a combined-cycle gas power plant. It’s not a new technology, it is how every natural gas power plant should have been designed in Alberta but wasn’t made mandatory. There is NOTHING innovative here.

Sturgeon County Council Commitments:

• The Sturgeon County Mayor claims she will continue to set high standards on power, water, environmental stewardship and land use. No data center has been required to carry out an environmental impact assessment yet—will Mayor Hnatiw insist? Will First Nations and residents’ consent be required?

Remember, if Meta was really in it for Alberta it would NOT be:

1. Running this facility on natural gas, they would be insisting it runs on renewables only, using the least amount of energy and water not the most.

2. Blocking Canadians from accessing news sources since August of 2023.

3. Allowing accounts, individuals, and groups to make money while misinformation Canadians. This excellent report by “What to Fix” shows how Meta’s Monetization Enforcement in Practice requires more than 30 complaints before removing channels caught misinforming. Meta reinstates accounts that mislead and channels money to these bad actors, including political parties, politicians, police, the military, and sanctioned groups in other jurisdictions.

4. Funding the fossil fuel industry and the far right’s agenda. Alberta’s own Geoff Dembicki—the founder of Desmog—Mapped Poilievre’s Inner Circle of Lobbyists and Right-wing Activists in March 2025. The mapping shows how Facebook supported Poilievres “Project 2025” agenda in last years’ Canadian election.

5. Geoff also wrote The Petroleum Papers which explains how crucial Alberta’s oil and gas industry is to the global climate misinformation machine.

But wait, there’s more… like a lot more!

Here is the current list of the Alberta Data Centers - Providers Map in Alberta, Canada, it lists 57 centers as of today. I HIGHLY recommend you visit The Real Knitty on Instagram. She does a deep dive on the Beacon AI Centres. I won’t do her investigative work justice so please view it here: 🫠🫠And a $13B meta one was just announced 🫠🫠 ya know, the company that just poisoned a bunch of people at a different data centre location.

To sum up Knitty’s findings:

• Beacon AI appears to point to a Lord from Northern Ireland.

• The company has ties to the Cayman Islands and Delaware—places known to hide fraud and ownership. Epstein file type sketchiness here.

• The changes to the Water Act made by R.J. Sigurdson, in his role as Minister of Agriculture, are clearly coming into play to support the AI data Centre assault on Albertans.

• And former CPC MP and Alberta PC MLA Ken Hughes is on the board of directors, aiding the navigation around the rules here.

Water Not Coal and the Referendum

If this news isn’t enough to make your heart stop, the inability of Elections Alberta to validate the Water Not Coal campaign is pointing to some serious concerns related to their ability to count ballots in the referendum. It will cost an estimated $130 million dollars. For reference, the 2023 election had 13,000 employees and 1.7 million ballots cast. This referendum requires 60,000 workers for potentially 45 million ballots! Even Braid is sounding the alarm: Corb Lund petition fiasco signals trouble for Oct. 19 referendum blitz.

UPDATES:

1. Something’s Gravely Wrong With How Elections Alberta Torpedoed Corb Lund’s Water-Not-Coal Citizen Initiative Petition courtesy of here: https://albertapolitics.ca/2026/07/somethings-gravely-wrong-with-how-elections-alberta-torpedoed-corb-lunds-water-not-coal-citizen-initiative-petition/.

2. Note the David and Goliath fight we are in for Alberta and for Canada, here is the list of 21 TPAs: 15 for separatism and racism, 5 for Alberta and Canada, and one group for the status quo, no matter what.

Refendum Registered Tpas

486KB ∙ PDF file

Download

List of the Third Party Advertisers registered in Alberta as of July 12, 2026. There are 15 TPAs working towards separation and 5 working towards saving Alberta and Canada.

Download

TAKE ACTIONS!

1. Tell Environment Minister Grant Hunter to BAN AI Datacenters:

Ban AI Data Centers in Alberta

2. Call or email Premier Smith to demand she cancel the referendum, stop the taxpayer waste and sure-to-fail validation process.

3. Join or donate your Dani Dollars to Public Interest Alberta’s “Together—NO!” campaign, stop Smith’s racist and divisive agenda!

albertareferendum2026.org

Truth Before Reconciliation!

Thanks Holly Standingready for the great t-shirt and assertion: we cannot reconcile when we’re being actively mislead by our governments. Support the Treaty Chiefs in their fight to uphold the treaties or your community may be the next environmental sacrifice zone as explained.

A major portion of this discussion unpacks the “nine planetary boundaries” popularized by Joe Brewer’s work on regenerating Cascadia, which I frame as “laws of the land” as literal earth system limits and a way to define the polycrisis humanity faces. Colin walks through boundaries including climate change, biosphere integrity, land‑system change, freshwater change, biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus), ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and novel entities like microplastics and PFAS chemicals, emphasizing that most thresholds have already been crossed and that nitrogen/phosphorus flows are “most off the chart.” Colin adds detailed examples such as Lake Winnipeg’s blue‑green algae and microcystin issues linked to phosphates and dams, and notes Geological Survey of Canada findings that such formations are associated with several major past extinctions, while Colin and Alex highlight the ubiquity of microplastics and PFAS, including tire‑derived microplastics reaching even remote mountain lakes. They stress that these interacting boundaries create feedbacks—such as aerosols temporarily masking warming—and that recent removal of Sulphur from marine fuels may have accelerated atmospheric warming, illustrating how different boundaries can counteract or amplify each other.

In response to this crisis, our conversation shifts to bioregions and ecological‑based economies, drawing on Indigenous territorial perspectives and watershed‑based governance. Colin explains bioregions as nested, fractal landscape units defined by watersheds, flora, fauna, and climate, using Southern Alberta’s Bow River Basin and its tributaries (Ghost, Jumping Pound, Elbow, Highwood, Sheep, Oldman) as examples, and contrasts this with nation‑state borders and modern capitalism’s pull toward resource extraction and urban concentration. Alex and Colin discuss territorial self‑governance and local food systems, citing Redcliff, Alberta’s large greenhouse complex as a model for year‑round vegetable production that reduces transport emissions, and proposing co‑locating greenhouses with existing gas wells to use natural gas and captured carbon for food production. Colin and I then highlight social design principles from Joe Brewer’s work: defining shared identity and purpose, equitable allocation of contributions and benefits, fair and inclusive decision‑making, fast conflict resolution, and “stability projects” as a starting point before deeper regeneration, all aimed at moving from a wasteful, ever‑growth economy toward collective, outcomes‑based systems.

Throughout, we grapple with the emotional and political dimensions of ecological collapse. Colin argues that recent spikes in wildfires, floods, drought, and other anomalies suggest we are “outside of the realm of survivability” for current lifestyles, and criticizes short‑term political thinking and promises of unlimited growth, calling instead for grassroots, mycelium‑like community organizing, unexpected alliances across political divides, and a redefinition of wealth away from material growth toward regeneration of natural abundance. He and I emphasize the need to face grief and fear together, avoid tribalism, and use nature itself—through initiatives like Land Lovers and Compost Club—as a healing, community‑building context that mirrors the diversity and interdependence of healthy ecosystems. The episode closes with me reiterating that the crisis is not just “climate change” but a nine‑facet planetary problem driven by a wasteful growth economy, and expressing hope that conversations like this, and potential collaboration with Joe Brewer, can help “pull the tapestry together” among many people already doing ecological work in Alberta and beyond.

For more information on Joe Brewer’s work, check out this YouTube playlist on bioregional organizing I made:

Bioregional Organizing Videos

To: pm@pm.gc.ca, Premier@gov.ab.ca, premier@gov.bc.ca, premier@gov.sk.ca

Cc: info@chiefssteeringcommittee.net, pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca, contact@ndp.ca, ministre-minister@ec.gc.ca, info@pathwaysproject.ca

Dear Prime Minister and Premiers,

As an Alberta, Canadian, Geophysicist, oil and gas environmental liability expert, and mother, I am beyond belief. It seems we are living the darkest timeline. After decades of believing that Canada was a country to be proud of, I am disheartened to learn that the Canadian Government has abandoned our duty towards Truth and Reconciliation, for the public good.

It is clear that Canada’s political class are choosing a Canada who openly exploits communities to the point of genocide and/or ecocide, both at home and abroad. So-called Alberta, Canada is not only the home of the largest ongoing environmental catastrophe on the planet but you are now proposing we double the harm, abandoning Land Stewardship, International Treaty, and Natural Law. At Canadian taxpayer expense—Why?

The corporate leaders who led us here have proven their inability to deliver on climate for decades now. Back in the 1990s when it was clear that the oil and gas industry was NOT meeting its “world class” environmental regulations, my former “mentor” designed the orphan programs for the industry across British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, as well as the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP) special for the oil sands companies—which contains a loophole: no backstop. These programs are like no other programs on the planet. They promise that no matter what happens, the companies standing will pay for the costs to clean up and restore the lands and waterways. Except for the oil sands, those operators need to time their exit perfectly by paying to clean up right when they know they can’t extract anymore before going broke. How is that going?

From 2020-2022, my role in the industry was to provide advice to your governments to mitigate insolvencies and orphans on behalf of the company I worked for—a company with a hefty stake in the orphan programs across all three provinces (BC ~40%, AB ~ 25%, and SK ~15%). Over those years it was very apparent that the costs to clean up and restore well, facility, and pipeline sites are way higher than what the public (investors) sees. Throughout those years, my employer kept telling me we could not know these costs. It wasn’t possible. I insisted this wasn’t true. It turns out the work had been completed by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in 2018. And when this news reached the public, the work was thrown out and the team disbanded. Turns out the very same thing happened at the AER with respect to the oil sands.

After pleading constructive dismissal, a friend within the company took me for coffee to hear my story. I closed with, “I don’t understand why our company isn’t taking insolvency risk seriously, since we stand to lose the most when companies go under” (via the orphan programs). His responded with, “Oh the plan is separation, I just went for coffee with an industry President and he told me there are 10 oil and gas executives who have been working on a plan to separate for more than 10 years.”

I say this for the record, as I now see that there is no confusion as to:

• the size of the problem,

• who is responsible for it,

• how they plan to avoid paying for it,

• how to address it, and

• when it all needs to be done.

Federal Land Stewardship Laws provide the guidance, several databases are available to high-grade lands, waterways, and waterbodies for restoration. What is needed is federal water, biodiversity, and ecological ongoing monitoring of progress towards this. Instead, we are witnessing:

1. A rollback on carbon pricing targets and timelines.

2. Underreported emissions and increased freshwater consumption by companies in the provinces and no federal or provincial enforcement towards meaningful reductions. The world is facing freshwater bankruptcy, it is criminal to abandon this responsibility.

3. Provincial-Federal agreements void of Treaty Law.

4. A rollback of Environmental Impact Assessments.

5. A rollback of AER flaring limits.

6. The Notwithstanding Clause used to abuse our Charter Rights.

7. Canada’s Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) not being refunded.

8. The promotion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology—proven to have failed time and time again—to justify continued oil and gas development.

9. The end of the Alberta Water Council.

10. The end of the Clean Air Alliance.

11. The industry is being rewarded for all of these rollbacks with:

    1. An obscene economic strategy of AI data surveillance to support natural gas and LNG development across the country, primarily in Alberta. Last count is 57 projects proposed.

    2. Another grand bargain: you want us to pay for another pipeline and a sure-fail CCS project.

12. Rollbacks in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans where water rights are upheld.

It is clear that the Government of Canada is abandoning your legal obligations to your people and the planet. Please let’s not pretend this is some kind of 4D chess. As an Albertan who cares deeply for this place and its people, please know that I see this for what it is and am deeply ashamed of you for misleading us here.

There is another path, instead of holding onto a system of exploitation and extinction, you can choose to be a hero. You can choose honesty and redemption. If I can do it, so can you. I will continue to do this work whether I am a free to do so or not.

Sincerely,

Jennifer D. Yeremiy, P. Geoph

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Dr. Joe Vipond from the Calgary Climate Hub describes their charity’s role in empowering Calgarians to participate in climate solutions, including through an electricity working group that became interested in European “balcony solar” as a way for renters, condo owners, and people without suitable roofs to join the energy transition. He notes that plug‑in solar can offset about a third of a household’s electricity use, which is significant in the current context of energy costs. I mention that jurisdictions like England are pushing such legislation in response to energy shortages linked to the war in Iran, framing this as a timely discussion. Joe and the host also highlight that current microgeneration regulations were written for larger rooftop systems, not small 800–1200 W plug‑in units, so the law simply hasn’t caught up yet.

Chris outlines the complex stakeholder landscape—safety and compliance bodies, utilities, authorities having jurisdiction, municipalities, and even fire departments—and explains that Volta Home began by working with Underwriters Laboratories and engaging CSA to create and harmonize UL 3700 across North America so manufacturers can build to a single standard and reduce costs. He describes how they then engaged their local utility to validate grid export and compensation for homeowners, noting that in Europe millions of such systems have been deployed, adding near utility-scale capacity in a short time and offering utilities a potential advantage if they support rather than block the technology. Looking ahead, Chris expects a UL 3700 technical committee to form around late fall to early winter, with a possible official standard by mid‑next year, after which “nano generation” policies—similar to Germany’s simple online registration for sub‑600/800 W systems—would be needed to unlock widespread adoption.

Joe explains that while anyone can technically assemble a panel and microinverter and plug it in today, doing so is illegal because current legislation requires an interconnection permit and a licensed electrician, making small systems uneconomical: systems might cost $800–$1,600, but the interconnection permit in Alberta is at least $4,000 plus roughly $1,000 in electrician costs. The Calgary Climate Hub is therefore pushing legislative changes to remove the interconnection requirement for these small systems, mandate compliance with standards like UL 3700, establish a “right to install” despite landlords or condo boards, and provide liability releases for utilities and other entities. Joe cites Europe’s more than four million installed systems and the absence of solar-related safety incidents (with only one fire tied to a battery system, which is not what they’re currently discussing) as evidence of safety. He calls plug‑in solar a “no‑brainer” for homeowners, utilities, and governments, and urges citizens to support the campaign via pluginsolarpower.ca by sending letters and signing petitions, while Chris recommends using that site as a central “single source of truth” and notes that federal policy, modeled on Germany or the UK, is needed to align standards, legislation, and market adoption across Canada.

WRITE YOUR MP HERE!

Join the Calgary Climate Hub MONDAY, June 29 at the Sunalta Community Hall from 6-8:30 pm.

Clean Energy Future Talk Sign Up!

Please note: I am taking a break over the summer and will be running water conversation reruns from the past 3 season.

Reach out should you wish to discuss something urgent!

Pledge "Together-NO!" Here!

Public Interest Alberta is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, grassroots advocacy organization with about a thousand volunteers across the province, supported by unions such as Health Sciences and UNA, focused on public services and democracy and refusing government funding. They see themselves as a suitable vehicle to coordinate a large, four‑month, province‑wide campaign involving hundreds of volunteers and many partner organizations, including existing networks like Forever Canadian, Water Not Coal, Recall Nicoladies, and groups such as Alberta Voice and the Calgary Alliance for the Common Good, as well as faith communities and newcomer‑serving agencies. The campaign is explicitly framed as a “David and Goliath” effort against a well‑funded government communications push, with the speakers emphasizing the need for people‑powered organizing, financial donations, and broad civil‑society collaboration to send a clear message that “Alberta’s better than this referendum.”

A major component of the strategy is a robust, data‑driven approach: Together—NO! is working with an experienced Canadian polling firm to test assumptions, measure baseline attitudes, evaluate which messages are most and least effective, and see how government framing holds up when contrasted with fact‑ and values‑based counter‑arguments. We highlight how prior polling on issues like the polluter‑pay principle showed high support “when prompted,” revealing that awareness, not agreement, was the main gap—an insight we want to replicate here to tailor outreach, raise awareness of misleading question framing, and continually refine messaging through both polling and feedback from real conversations on the ground. This research will guide whether the campaign will address the referendum as a whole or focus on specific questions, and help them “meet people where they’re at” while keeping the core goal of securing “no” votes on the agenda.

Operationally, the campaign is built around a mix of digital infrastructure, regional organizing, and direct outreach. The website albertareferendum2026.org hosts a pledge form where people can commit to voting, volunteering, or donating, and serves as the central hub for staying in touch. We are developing regional campaigns in Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge, and likely other cities such as Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray, with plans for extensive canvassing, event tabling, literature drops for those uncomfortable with door‑knocking, and a “road show” in August and September across about 15 locations featuring campaign launches and town halls. Training is structured in two main tracks: “train‑the‑trainer” programs to build local leadership capable of running canvassing operations and regional campaigns, and canvassing workshops (including deep canvassing techniques) to prepare volunteers for hard conversations, equip them with facts about immigrants’ contributions and taxation, and build confidence for door‑to‑door engagement.

Throughout, Brad and I stress values of fairness, neighbourliness, and solidarity, arguing that most Albertans do not want to “punish” newcomers who work, pay taxes, and support communities, and that the government is trying to manufacture scapegoats and a “firewall” narrative that doesn’t reflect real Alberta values. We frame the campaign as an opportunity to build long‑term organizing capacity, empower local leaders, and create space for constructive, respectful conversations that both “agitate” their base and help people reach their own understanding, with the ultimate aim of emerging from the referendum with stronger democratic engagement and renewed focus on strengthening public services rather than pursuing divisive, racially charged constitutional experiments.

Join Us Here!

Take Action Saturday, June 27 from 11-4 pm.

A rally for Unity from 11 am to 1:45 pm at the McDougall Centre, then an Anti-AI Rally from 2-4 pm!

I am taking a hiatus from the podcast over the summer, I will be rerunning the conversations focused on water to highlight the people doing this work. Should something come up which needs to be discussed, in your opinion, please let me know.

I am speaking at both events tomorrow, I hope to see you there!

White outlines the “Water for Life” strategy’s three pillars:

1. safe, secure drinking water,

2. healthy aquatic ecosystems, and

3. reliable water supplies for a sustainable economy.

In its early years, the Council quickly tackled drinking water by reviewing 525 major facilities to ensure licensed operators and compliance. Subsequent work focused on water supply for the economy and attempted, with difficulty, to define and operationalize “healthy aquatic ecosystems,” including a failed attempt to define riparian areas that was rejected by government lawyers. Major outputs included a draft provincial wetland policy delivered in 2008, which the government only translated into the current policy in 2013, and a voluntary initiative where all water‑using sectors reduced water use by 30% within two years, a target the chair had chosen somewhat arbitrarily. White notes the Council also produced numerous documents on drought, floods, drinking water, and source water protection, largely through volunteer project teams supported by a small staff, arguing the province received exceptional value for minimal funding.

The turning point of the conversation is the Alberta government’s abrupt decision to terminate the Alberta Water Council. White recounts receiving a January 26 letter giving the Council 90 days to wind down, despite a grant that was supposed to run until late 2026, and being asked to chair the final full board meeting. He reads his “Jerry Maguire moment” statement, in which he condemns the decision as deeply disappointing and the process as a three‑month “erasure” of 23 years of collaborative governance, trust, and capacity. He stresses that the Council was not ineffective or obsolete but “patient” and “inconvenient to haste,” and warns that the loss of its advisory role will be felt later as policy gaps and fractured relationships. Afterward, colleagues reacted with stunned silence and later messages of support; White and others believe the 90‑day cutoff was designed to prevent the Council from securing new operational funding, which typically takes years to obtain. The host connects this to a broader pattern of “erasure,” including reports of documents being removed from government offices after the 2019 election and the rapid dismantling or absorption of major entities in the oil and gas sector.

Board Colleagues,

 There are moments when the decisions of those in power do more than alter budgets or reorganize priorities.
They reveal what we value—and, more troublingly, what we are willing to abandon.
For twenty‑three years, the Alberta Water Council served as a place of careful listening.
A forum where industry, communities, municipalities, and government itself met not as adversaries, but as stewards of a shared responsibility.
Water, after all, is not ideological. It is not partisan. Water is life.
And yet, with little warning and less regard, this work has been consigned to a three‑month farewell.
Decades of trust, expertise, and collaboration reduced to a winding‑down period scarcely long enough to say goodbye—let alone account for what is being lost.
This Council has spent twenty‑three years doing work that rarely makes headlines—and that is precisely why it mattered.
As a Water for Life partner, the Alberta Water Council proved that shared governance and collaboration was not a weakness, but a strength.
Industry, municipalities, NGOs, and government came to the same table—not to win, but to understand.
We did not chase certainty. We built trust.
And now, with three months’ notice, that trust is being asked to quietly disperse.
I want to be clear about my reaction.
I am deeply disappointed by this decision.
And I am profoundly disturbed by the manner in which it was made.
This was not an organization that failed.
It was not ineffective.
It was not obsolete.
It was patient. It was careful. It was inconvenient to haste.
Collaborative water policy is slow by design. It asks people who disagree to keep speaking.
It insists that water—shared, finite, and unforgiving—deserves more than short timelines and abrupt conclusions.
Three months is not a transition.
It is an erasure.
Long after this Council closes its doors, the consequences of this decision will remain—felt in policy gaps, fractured relationships, and lost capacity that cannot be reassembled on demand.
History rarely marks the moment when stewardship ends.
It only records when its absence is finally noticed.
We did the work.
We honored the responsibility.
And that record will stand—whether it is acknowledged or not.
Water policy advice is not dramatic.
But its absence is.
And one day, when foresight is urgently needed and quietly missing,
we will recall that it did not vanish on its own.
It was cancelled.

We then examine the broader dismantling of Alberta’s water governance architecture. Jay explains that WPACs are mandated to produce regular state‑of‑the‑watershed reports and integrated watershed management plans, but these plans are explicitly voluntary and lack regulatory hooks, leading some industry representatives to disengage once they realize there is no binding requirement. He notes that watershed stewardship groups, which implement on‑the‑ground projects like riparian fencing and off‑site watering, have lost a key funding conduit with the disappearance of the Land Stewardship Centre, creating competition for “paltry” remaining funds. With the Alberta Water Council gone at the top and stewardship funding cut at the bottom, only the WPACs remain, and their own funding agreements expire at the end of 2026, making 2027 a critical and uncertain year. I underscore that these structures were about ensuring clean, sufficient drinking water and functioning ecosystems that underpin the entire economy, and expresses alarm that advisory capacity is being casually removed.

In the latter part of the conversation, we connect Alberta’s situation to national and global biodiversity and climate commitments. White describes the federal “Force of Nature” policy, tied to Kunming biodiversity commitments and the goal of protecting 30% of land and waters by 2030, backed by $2.8 billion in funding. As a biologist working on wetland restoration projects, Jay was eager to see this funding support restoration and reclamation, especially given severe biodiversity losses—about 70% of aquatic species in North America and 40–50% of global biodiversity in the last 50 years—and the current “sixth major extinction” driven by humans. However, Alberta was skipped in the first funding round; White notes the provincial government claimed it did not need the money because 64% of Alberta (the green area) is Crown‑managed and supposedly “essentially undisturbed,” a claim he disputes by pointing to Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute data showing extensive human footprint and fragmentation.

Take Action: Write the ECCC and Alberta Environment Ministers

Subject: Enforce the “Force of Nature” Strategy in Alberta

To: julie.dabrusin@parl.gc.ca

Cc: epa.outreach-services@gov.ab.ca (Grant Hunter); your MLA, the Premier

Dear Hon. Julie Dabrusin,

It has come to my attention that Alberta did not receive any Federal grant money related to the Federal Nature Strategy. As a province with the largest ongoing environmental catastrophe underway—where interbasin transfers are being contemplated to sustain an outrageous level of steam injection and extraction, with growing groundwater contamination concerns, coupled with more than 275,000 conventional oil and gas sites to be restored—I am shocked our province did not seek or receive funding in this program.

Restoring nature is required for Alberta and Canada to regain ecological stability. Each province should receive funds and measure success through biodiversity and water monitoring and mitigation efforts.

Considering the energy and ecological cliff this province and country is facing (due to the war on Iran and the unchecked climate crisis), it is time to ensure this work aligns with Species at Risk and Land Stewardship Laws before it is too late. There is no question we face water bankruptcy if we do not take nature restoration work seriously.

Please advise how Environment and Climate Change Canada and Alberta Environment are working together to ensure the province takes its role seriously in these efforts. The federal government needs to cease oil and gas development, pipelines, tolls, or carbon capture and storage subsidies but rather co-invest in nature and water restoration with industries.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, P. Geoph

Wesam explains that the new MOU, pushed by the United States, has not been signed by Iran and is already being violated by Israel, which refuses to recognize that it applies to them and continues bombing Lebanon, including Beirut. He argues that Iran is in a position of military strength, confident it could “end this once and for all” if forced into an all‑out war, though at enormous human cost. We both emphasize that US‑Israeli strategy relies on deliberate attacks on civilians as a core military tactic, citing the bombing of a girls’ school and the broader pattern in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. We criticize Western media as actively misleading on West Asia, praising Iran’s English‑language PressTV.ir as more accurate about on‑the‑ground realities than corporate Western outlets.

We then connect the war to global economic and energy dynamics, arguing that the US is masking crisis by draining oil reserves and manipulating markets, while Iran leverages its position in a broader struggle over fossil fuels. I describe US oil infrastructure like Cushing as “arteries” now running low, warning that restarting flows will be difficult and that the US is only a few weeks away from feeling severe impacts. I link this to Alberta’s role as a supplier and to the idea that investing in the “most expensive” military has not produced the most effective one, especially when facing a confident Iran willing to prolong the energy squeeze. Wesam notes that Western governments, including Canada, now largely support the deal with Iran to avoid “falling off a cliff,” while Israel alone vetoes peace through continued bombing, revealing its outsized leverage even over the Trump administration.

The discussion shifts to Zionism and settler colonialism, distinguishing between Christian Zionists, who see Israel as part of an apocalyptic prophecy, and Jewish Zionists, who view the land as divinely promised and expandable beyond Palestine into neighbouring states. I highlight the “Greater Israel” project and note that even as Israel loses militarily, it is still grabbing land in Lebanon, aided by a US president with a real‑estate mindset. Wesam explicitly labels Israel a settler‑colonial project akin to Canada, built on racist expansion, genocide, and the confinement of Indigenous peoples into “bantustans,” and argues that Iran, Palestine, and regional resistance movements have concluded they can no longer coexist with this settler colony. He warns that Israel’s deep push into Lebanon may be overextension, likening it to the board game Risk where an army stretches too thin and becomes vulnerable to counterattack.

From there, we pivot to Alberta and Canada, framing Alberta as a “minor front” of US empire where inter‑imperialist competition between the US and Europe plays out over pipelines, resources, and political alignment. Wesam describes competing pipeline visions—one east‑west to feed European markets and another southward backed by Premier Danielle Smith—alongside talk of Canada potentially joining the EU, which the US would oppose in favour of absorbing Canada itself. We connect this to a massive planned build‑out of AI data centres in Alberta, driven by natural gas and championed by figures like Kevin O’Leary, and warn that this expansion threatens water, ecosystems, and Indigenous rights while enriching external investors who can “take the money and run.” I describe the provincial referendum with nine “unconstitutional” questions that she believes are designed to deepen racial divisions, undermine rights, and invite US‑style enforcement (e.g., ICE‑like agencies), and she outlines her work with Public Interest Alberta’s “Together No” campaign to oppose these measures and broader separatist agendas.

In the final stretch, we centre Indigenous nations and Palestinian solidarity as crucial to any meaningful anti‑separatist or anti‑imperialist project. Wesam notes that treaty nations have become the strongest defenders of the land, in part because of long experience resisting Canadian and RCMP abuses, and mentions that chiefs are seeking to have Danielle Smith tried for treason. He argues that if Alberta ever gains a right to secede, every treaty nation must first have the right to secede from Alberta, and that white Canadians must commit to “absolute uncontested sovereignty” for Indigenous peoples and to ending projects like pipelines imposed over Indigenous opposition. He also points to a scandal around the suppression of a Gaza encampment at the University of Calgary, allegedly involving Mike Ellis and possibly Danielle Smith, as a potential lever to weaken the Smith government and its separatist ambitions, but insists this can only be used by an anti‑separatist movement that openly and fully supports Gaza and Palestinian liberation. The episode closes with both speakers stressing reciprocity and solidarity—between settlers, Indigenous nations, and West Asian communities—and inviting anti‑separatist leaders to an upcoming July 5 anti‑imperialist forum in Alberta to discuss how struggles in Palestine, West Asia, and the Americas are interconnected.

Post show media sources

1. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/pm-carney-says-hes-seen-tentative-us-iran-peace-deal-calls-conflict-worth-it/

2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-war-united-states-israel-lebanon-deal-9.7237094

3. Post Media Graphic & Post

4. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/details-of-us-iran-deal-revealed

5. https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/12/business/cushing-oil-inventory

6. https://fortune.com/2026/06/10/us-strategic-petroleum-reserve-depleted-lowest-level-since-reagan/

7. Bonus market turmoil discussion courtesy of Kpler who offers global trade intelligence:

Meet Kpler at Stampede

I am attending the Kpler stampede party to get the scoop from this oil and gas market flows analyst directly.

Kpler Stampede Party Registration