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

Jessica introduces herself as a water and climate campaigner, formerly a Line 5 pipeline organizer with Sierra Club Canada, living in Guelph with her family. She shares a story about activist Kim Bradshaw lending her a car so Kim could travel by train to glue her hands to an airport tarmac in an anti–big oil action, illustrating “community in action.”

Jessica describes her unusual path into activism: she left law school after being diagnosed with fibromyalgia, then became a yoga teacher, which shaped her ability to “hold space” in movements. This conversation came after I watched a pro‑pipeline “Build Ontario Strong” ad promoting gas for AI infrastructure and wanted an Ontario perspective. Jessica recounts a recent two‑day Civil Society Summit on the AI industry, with 270 attendees and panels on Indigenous data sovereignty, environmental harms, gender‑based violence, labour, war, food systems, corporate accountability, and AI in media and arts. She stresses the summit was not about shaming everyday AI use (like email summarization) but about how AI is being used as a “front person” for oil and gas, justifying continued fossil fuel expansion under nationalist competition narratives.

Jessica frames AI as a neutral tool—like a hammer—whose impact depends on who controls it, what rules exist, and how power is exercised. I echo this, arguing AI can be used for “pro‑social” purposes such as organising toward a water‑centred economy, minimizing energy use, and keeping systems local rather than controlled by foreign entities. I link AI expansion to abandonment of international law and corporate accountability, warning of ecological collapse and citing examples of water contamination and freshwater loss in places like Texas and Louisiana.

Jessica explains that civil society is trying to reclaim the AI narrative from “tech bros” who have captured political attention, and to invite everyday people into the conversation. She notes that youth, highly adept with digital tools, are at the forefront of resisting AI data centres and can mobilise quickly even within short public‑input windows and confirms summit recordings are available at AICivilsociety.ca. I highlight @Alberta_Anti_AI, an Instagram group with over 3,000 members in under a month, and describes coordinated rallies in Alberta and Ontario, including a Unity rally and anti‑AI rally in Calgary, and a previous provincial‑wide day of action with thousands in Edmonton, Calgary, and [21] other locations. Check out @Solstice’s video from the main event in Calgary here.

Jessica cites Hamilton and Burks Falls (Ontario) as recent examples of local resistance, noting that some victories—like projects stopped before shovels hit the ground—are under‑reported but real. In Burks Falls, two 20‑year‑old women organized opposition that led the city to take a data centre proposal off the table. She emphasizes that activism often slows rather than fully stops projects, buying time for alternative paths to emerge. I agree, it’s a David‑and‑Goliath struggle where our wins are measured in delays and vigilance.

I describe Alberta communities organizing against massive data centres, including one 1.4‑gigawatt project (equivalent to 1.4 million homes’ energy use) that drew over 1,100 statements of concern. I criticize incomplete accounting that ignores upstream gas extraction and frac’ing, pointing out that water used in fracking is permanently lost. She mentions strong pushback in Grande Prairie and multiple sites near Calgary, with communities sharing strategies and resources like the airesistlist.org website.

Jessica tells me municipalities are key battlegrounds because AI data centres intersect with zoning, real estate, and venture capital. She describes efforts to support youth organizers who want June 27 to become a national day of action, prompted by BC Greens leader Emily Lowen. With only 16 days’ lead time, they are building a decentralized toolkit tailored to the Canadian context and engaging about 200 people across sectors to define what civil society should be in this moment. She argues AI threatens the entire political spectrum and cites Mark Carney’s “AI for All” strategy as essentially focused on ensuring adoption, not democratic consent.

I underscore AI is unifying issue across left and right, tied to water, surveillance, safety, jobs, and environmental destruction. I cite the Wonder Valley project, which she says would be the largest heat source in the world, and name large AI data centres “gas guzzling” and resource‑wasting infrastructure serving billionaires, contrasting them with low‑power, everyday AI uses. Jessica clarifies that “AI” is often used as a monolithic term, but the real empire project is the race toward AGI—machines outperforming humans on all tasks—requiring massive power to scrape the entire internet. She notes AI can also be small‑scale and community‑oriented, such as tools for preserving local languages. However, she argues current dominant uses deepen social inequity rather than reduce it.

I give a concrete example of AI‑enabled monetization: vehicles from 2026 onward reportedly requiring subscriptions for features like heated seats and full radio use, effectively taxing people’s own property and widening divides. I support national coordination and cites Taiwan’s Audrey Tang using digital tools to achieve 90% public support for policies before voting, as well as the town of Olds exploring people‑driven economic planning instead of elite committees. I link AI data centres to centralized power generation, arguing that renewables’ strength lies in decentralization and security, especially as wars make large {oil and gas] facilities, including AI centres, potential military targets.

Jessica reflects on a broader shift from “power over” to “power with,” calling solidarity a “miracle” given humanity’s long, often violent history. She notes that people now show solidarity beyond shared language or appearance, citing global concern for Gaza as an example. She argues big‑tent movements should not require full consensus and asks how much agreement is really needed to work together, given our survival is intertwined. She references Maud Barlow’s warning that within about 10 years there could be a 40% global water shortfall, stressing the urgency as billionaires continue extracting both resources and power. She highlights that many US AI data‑centre fights are led by everyday people—barbers, teenagers, young adults—and frames this as a moment where “the box has crumbled,” asking who we want to be.

I agree that anyone who cares can participate and recounts narratives that divide provinces: Alberta stereotypes about Ontario’s “Laurentian elites” and Ontarians allegedly seeing Albertans as backward “bow hunks” needing outside guidance. I warn these stories hinder cooperation even as shared threats like AI data centres and looming “water bankruptcy” (citing UN water expert Bob Sandford’s work) demand unity and ecological restoration. I ask Jessica how these narratives look from Ontario.

Jessica says her view of other provinces is primarily relational, shaped by people she’s worked with rather than media narratives, and she feels “unplugged” from many ads and stereotypes because she doesn’t watch organized sports. She acknowledges that separatist movements and social media algorithms fuel judging and generalizing about entire provinces. She stresses that relational work is “everything” because elites benefit when people are easily controlled by pre‑packaged narratives. She cites reports that first‑year university students struggle to finish full papers due to social media’s impact on attention, warning this undermines future capacity to read complex bills or arguments. She argues that change will come less from perfect arguments and more from thousands of people building relationships and community resilience as crises—especially in the Global South—intensify. She frames “divide and conquer” as a deliberate strategy of those in power and calls for stretching our capacity to see each other freshly, beyond conditioning.

I point to Gaza as both horrifying and inspiring, noting that people there have not turned on each other despite extreme conditions. I see this as a lesson in solidarity. I recall a Chinese government representative describing an “inevitability of peace,” which she finds a hopeful framing for this transition from power over to power with. I believe stopping further system deterioration would itself be a remarkable achievement and feel encouraged by emerging resistance.

In closing, Jessica emphasizes that activism is deeply personal and often happens in quiet, internal moments: noticing when we react to flattening narratives, asking who benefits if we believe them, and cultivating a habit of reflection. She calls this “life finding its own intelligence” and stresses that activism is not only public action but also slowing down with ourselves, questioning anger and manipulation before acting. I connect this to spiritual practice and “micro moments” of discernment—asking who is speaking, for whose benefit, and whether a message is truly for us—suggesting such practices are becoming more common.

Join the AI Civil Society today!

AICivilSociety.ca

Albertans often view Quebec as a “taker” province that receives special treatment, keeps its wealth, and benefits from federal transfers while restricting Alberta’s ability to develop oil and gas. Quebec is perceived as having different values—linked mainly to French culture—and as opposing Alberta’s oil and gas interests, especially around pipelines and environmental protection. At the same time, I note that Quebec’s stronger climate stance and bans on practices like frac’ing are seen as positive environmental leadership, even if they clash with Alberta’s extractive priorities.

Chris explains that many Albertans misunderstand equalization, believing Alberta should get back exactly what it pays in federal taxes, when in reality the federal government redistributes funds based on national priorities, meaning Alberta may not see a direct return on every dollar. This feeds a perception that Quebec and Ottawa benefit from Alberta’s wealth and block its development, reinforcing grievances that fuel separatist sentiment.

Comparisons are drawn between Alberta’s oil sands and Quebec’s large-scale hydro, mining, and industrial projects; many Albertans feel Quebec gets easier federal approval and preferential treatment for its projects, while Alberta faces more scrutiny. I question whether this perception is actually true, emphasizing that it is a narrative rather than a proven fact.

The discussion then shifts to Ontario and the idea of “Laurentian elites,” described as longstanding political and industrial power networks in central Canada—families, capitalists, and industrial behemoths concentrated along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence corridor, historically shaping national decisions. Alberta’s story about Ontario includes a sense that central Canada is the political center that decides national outcomes because of its population, leaving the Prairies feeling numerically and politically sidelined.

I recount past experiences of Ontarians viewing Alberta as backward or insignificant (e.g., being asked if Edmonton had paved roads), contributing to a feeling that Ontarians see Albertans as beneath them. Today, Chris notes that Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government is more moderate than Alberta’s United Conservative Party, and that Alberta Conservatives may not see Ontario Conservatives as truly conservative. I highlight that Ontario’s premier has recently adopted more Alberta-like rhetoric on pipelines and natural gas, suggesting some current alignment around resource development.

Despite these political dynamics, many Albertans still believe people in Ontario don’t understand or care about life in Alberta. I challenge the assumption that Ontarians broadly look down on Albertans, suggesting many Ontarians may share similar distrust of government and Ottawa, and that the “they think less of us” story may be overstated.

Narratives about Ottawa in Alberta center on the belief that the federal government is “handcuffing” Alberta, imposing rules that don’t make sense locally and preventing the province from thriving. Chris uses the example of federal restrictions on strychnine for prairie dog control, explaining how the poison moves up the food chain and harms predators and other animals, and how federal scientists pushed for restrictions to protect biodiversity. Political pressure from farmers led Ottawa to loosen these rules, illustrating tensions between private property rights, environmental science, and federal regulation.

We argue that private land use must respect “natural law,” especially in sensitive areas like riparian zones and creeks, where leaving buffer strips and protecting vegetation can benefit both farms and ecosystems. We frame riparian areas as critical infrastructure that reduce flood risk and protect surrounding lands, and suggest that better protection of such areas could have solved many environmental problems.

I advocate for nation-building projects focused on ecological restoration—re-willowing riparian zones, restoring wetlands, and headwater forests—as nature-based solutions that reduce long-term costs from climate-related disasters like severe hailstorms in Calgary, which cause billions in damages and higher insurance costs. Chris notes that current infrastructure spending tends to favour hard engineering (rocks, culverts, road works) because that’s where the money is, while the benefits of ecological approaches are poorly quantified.

Turning to the Maritimes, Albertan narratives often claim that Atlantic provinces have too many federal seats relative to their populations and that residents work just enough to qualify for employment insurance, reinforcing another “taker” stereotype. I recall the older concept of “have-not” provinces and the idea that wealthier regions should help those with fewer opportunities, and wonders if this solidarity has eroded.

Chris explains how the collapse of Atlantic cod fisheries transformed the region: scientific warnings about declining stocks led to calls for quota cuts, but political backlash weakened restrictions, and combined with technological advances and corporate consolidation, this drove overfishing and ultimately a catastrophic stock collapse that has not recovered. This history is used as an analogy for Alberta’s oil industry: I suggest Alberta could face a similar collapse if it over-extracts, especially given constraints like water transfers between basins, risks of over-pressurized formations, and evidence of freshwater contamination near Cold Lake. We argue that while private capital may sees Alberta oil and gas as a good short-term investment, environmental limits and potential catastrophes could force a rapid shift.

Our conversation concludes by tying these regional narratives back to Alberta’s internal identity. Chris says some Albertans behave like a family member who insists on having their way all the time and refuses criticism, even though Canada’s strength lies in its diversity. As a lifelong Albertan, we feel the province has changed: where Alberta once invested in campgrounds, forest rangers, wildlife protection, and a sense of balance, economic development and in-migration have shifted priorities toward making as much money as possible, often at the expense of natural infrastructure that will eventually need repair. This reinforces the broader point that many Alberta narratives about other regions and Ottawa are shaped by political messaging and economic anxiety, and that rebalancing toward environmental stewardship and interprovincial solidarity may be necessary.

Do you agree? What did we miss or where did we go wrong?

Draft Vision

Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied

Why?

The current vision sounds positive, but is too vague too support as written. It does not clearly prioritize ecological integrity, enforceable limits, Indigenous stewardship,

restoration, or cumulative-effects management. I am “somewhat unsupportive” and request this work be redone with enforceable outcome expectations aligned with ecological function needs.

Draft Outcomes

A. Recreation & Tourism Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied

Why?

A. Recreation and tourism must be managed within ecological limits. New footprint should be avoided at all costs.

B. Human Footprint Answer: Somewhat Satisfied

Why?

B. This outcome requires clear thresholds, transparent monitoring, and mandatory action when limits are exceeded. Human footprint needs to be reduced at scale for ecological function, not “managed decline”. The current human footprint is already too high and reduction needs to be the focus.

C. Headwater Protection Answer: Very Satisfied

Why?

C. The headwaters need to be defined and understood as the whole Ghost-Kananaskis region. Headwaters protection must include enforceable footprint reductions (in line with Canada’s 30x30), cumulative-effects thresholds, habitat protection, restoration of damaged areas, and stronger limits on roads and other linear disturbances. Clear cut logging activities need to cease. The forestry industry needs to present a plan for reforestation to increase biodiversity and regenerative function.

D. Traditional Land Use Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied

Why?

D. Traditional land uses should follow Indigenous stewardship, cultural continuity, access, and land relationships. This should support the long-term health of the land and water.

E. Policy Streamlining Answer: Very Dissatisfied

Why?

E. Policy should be clear and enforceable, but not simplified at the expense of ecological protection, public oversight, or Indigenous rights and responsibilities. Policy should be strengthened not streamlined for more resource extraction or commercial development. They should be clarified to enable greater public understanding and better land-use reduction enforcement.

F. Natural Resource Economy Answer: Very Dissatisfied

Why?

F. The current level of resource extraction is too big and degrading to the landscape. Biodiversity, native trout, high value ecological areas, old growth, and forest hydrology are declining. New resource extraction of any form should be banned while the water, land, and biodiversity restoration economy begins. Ban clear-cut logging and move toward ecosystem-based forest management (regenerative and selective logging practices, and the return of prescribed fire).

G. Wildfire Risk Answer: Somewhat Dissatisfied

Why?

G. Wildfire prevention should be based on sound ecological planning and watershed health.

Suggestions? Yes

My A-G “whys”

Outcomes Most Important to Me

• Human footprint is effectively managed to conserve biodiversity and water quality.

• Our headwaters are protected.

• Traditional land uses are supported.

• Wildfire risk is mitigated through preventative actions.

Select a Spot You Go!

I chose a spot on the Sheep River where we fish and was surprised that fishing wasn’t an option for activities there.

Employment or Affiliation

Energy Sector

Submitting on Behalf of

The Gravity Well

The Ghost-Kananaskis plan should be ambitious, enforceable, and based on ecological conservation. It needs simple, defensible thresholds to prevent and reduce cumulative effects, habitat fragmentation, and road density.

Needed:

• Key indicators measuring ecological integrity, water volume and water quantity.

• Public monitoring (independent of government and industry)

• Penalties when thresholds are crossed,

• Mandatory mitigation responses,

• Limit new disturbance

• Prioritizing restoration.

My Experience

Acceptable.

Bonus ACTION: send a follow up email

To: ghost-kananaskis-srp@gov.ab.ca, cc: Banff.Kananaskis@assembly.ab.ca, bcc: landlovers@bowbioregion.ca

SUBJECT: Concerns regarding the Ghost-Kananaskis Sub-regional Plan survey and request for stronger engagement

Hello Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas,

I completed the Ghost-Kananaskis Sub-regional Plan survey and wanted to follow up in writing. In my experience, the survey was too limited to capture the level of detail this The survey relies on broad, vague statements and does not meaningfully ask the key questions that should shape a credible sub-regional plan. The survey relies on broad, vague statements and does not meaningfully ask the key questions that should shape a credible sub-regional plan. In particular, I am concerned that it does not adequately address ecological thresholds, cumulative-effects limits, independent monitoring, public reporting, enforcement, restoration obligations, or what should happen when ecological conditions decline beyond acceptable limits.

In my view, the Ghost-Kananaskis plan should:

• Involve more meaningful public engagement, including in-person sessions focused on ecological system function requirements.

• Clearly prioritize headwaters protection, biodiversity, and ecological integrity

• Include simple, ecologically sound thresholds for key indicators

• Independent monitoring, separate from industry and government, is required and must be reported to the public in accessible ways

• Mandatory mitigation and recovery responses are required when ecological thresholds are crossed

• Protect all high-value ecological areas from new fragmentation and disturbance

• Commit to restoration and linear feature reduction in already disturbed areas

• Support Indigenous stewardship and long-term land relationships accountably.

The headwaters of the Elbow, Sheep, Highwood and Bow Rivers are too important for vague commitments and weak accountability. I urge you to strengthen the engagement process and ensure the final plan uses ecosystem-based management with strong commitments to long-term ecological health and integrity.

Thank you for considering this input.

Sincerely, Jenny Yeremiy [Postal Code]

Have a nice weekend, everyone!

From my perspective—as a geophysicist and oil and gas environmental liability expert—what’s happening in Olds is both shocking and emblematic of a wider pattern: residents are blindsided by huge, high‑impact projects—Synapse and Data District—framed as “done deals” by local and provincial economic arms before people have real information or a meaningful say. Janey highlights that Synapse is a 1.4‑gigawatt project—equivalent to adding about one million homes’ worth of power demand—and that there are two data centres proposed in her small town. I note more proposals appearing near Calgary, in Bonnyville and Fox Creek, and Wonder Valley in Grande Prairie.

A 1.4 gigawatt facility is like adding 1.4 million homes to Alberta’s grid “suddenly” and will affect everyone’s power costs and the province’s competitiveness, and it risks turning Alberta into a “sacrificial lamb” for a federal AI and data‑centre agenda. I explicitly connect this to a push to monetise natural gas and build massive fossil‑fuel‑driven power infrastructure—hundreds of diesel generators, turbines, and chillers running 24/7—just to feed these centres.

I outline who stands to gain from these AI data centers in this conversation with Charlie Angus on Meidas Canada.

Note: Wonder Valley is backed by UAE (https://www.theenergymix.com/70b-wonder-valley-project-still-a-mirage-as-olearys-ai-dream-stalls-in-alberta/) while Kuwait and Qatar are partnered with Brookfield’s Investment partners for Synapse.

Water is at the heart of our concerns. We stress that rural residents are already facing “very scary stuff” around water access and control, and that these data centres are “high draw water users” arriving in a context of growing scarcity. I explicitly thank Janey for “following the water” and say that water is “central to everything we want to have in this world,” making it unacceptable to hand it over to AI data centres “to compete with China” for something that doesn’t add value to the common good. I bring in the warning from UN water advisor Bob Sandford about us being on the “cusp of water bankruptcy,” and argue that this is precisely why cumulative water‑impact safeguards are being stripped away—because honest assessment would stop “this obscenity.”

The removal of environmental impact assessments is, to me, one of the most alarming pieces. I echo Janey’s point that environmental impact assessments—which check cumulative impacts of water and power—have been removed for both Wonder Valley and Synapse, leaving the AUC to look only at project‑specific issues rather than the bigger picture. I call this “critical” at a “critical point in time” and say it’s “quite obvious” that these safeguards have been “thrown out the window” precisely because they would block such “obscene” developments.

Janey notes a deep contradiction between years of carbon‑tax pressure on ordinary people and the sudden willingness of governments to green‑light massive, round‑the‑clock fossil‑fuel power plants for data centres, without robust cumulative environmental review. Janey describes how, after years of being “plagued with carbon taxes,” governments are now “throw[ing] the doors open” to polluting projects in order to “beat China” and make Alberta the “sacrificial province,” and I explicitly underscore that framing for listeners. I emphasise that this is “very big stuff and not something to be taken lightly.”

At the same time, I’m inspired by the scale and quality of local resistance. Janey explains how a small kitchen‑table group in Olds has grown into a record‑setting intervention at the Alberta Utilities Commission, with over 1,100 people stepping up to participate in proceeding 30732. I stress that the AUC staff themselves seem to be trying to do their jobs well and help residents navigate the process, even as higher‑level political decisions strip away environmental safeguards.

Take Action: use Little Town Big Data’s Guide to submitting a Statement of Intent to Become an Intervenor

Little Town Big Data Instructions

To amplify these local efforts, clarify timelines and tools for public action, and connect the dots for my audience between Olds, other proposed data‑centre sites, and broader provincial and federal policy directions, Janey walks listeners through the significance of the 1.4‑gigawatt load, the AUC proceeding number (30732), and the steps for filing a Statement of Intent to Participate, and I commit to following up so the public can “jump in when it’s most helpful.” Janey also encourage people to contact the province and the premier directly to demand a moratorium or slowdown so Alberta doesn’t become a “data‑centric guinea pig.”

Here’s the Premier’s Email: Premier@gov.ab.ca.

Olds fight as part of a larger pattern Alberta has seen before—like the coal‑mining battles—and standing up for water is critical for everyone, not just Olds. I call Janey and her neighbours “heroes for Alberta” and emphasize that these projects are deliberately sited in smaller communities where there are “fewer voices to be heard,” which is why broader provincial support from you and me is essential.

I criticize the new newsletter about a proposed data centre project for omitting key information about what powers the facility, assuming it will rely on natural gas and arguing that this leaves out major parts of the electricity, water, and contamination story. I highlight that the project is expected to use about six billion liters of water per year (six million cubic meters), which is roughly equivalent to the annual allocation for the Greenview District, effectively doubling municipal water use for a single project and with no guarantee that usage would remain capped at that level. I also note concerns about power demand, citing examples like Lake Tahoe where residents were reportedly told they could no longer get grid power due to a data facility, and emphasize that a seven‑gigawatt facility would be a massive addition, equating five gigawatts to the power needs of five million people.

I argue there is “zero benefit” to Canada and Albertans, claiming the project offers only limited construction and operations jobs and primarily serves U.S. government interests, which they accuse of trying to push Canada toward violating international law, climate obligations, and stability. I add that, especially after the war in Iran and anticipated resource shortages, leaders should make “extreme choices” to limit use of fossil fuels and ensure benefits do not accrue mainly to fossil fuel interests.

When asked what information the company should provide, I say the full scope of the project must be disclosed, including how power will be generated and the associated infrastructure, pointing to the example of Olds where oil and gas workers understand the gas turbines, roadways, and infrastructure needed for such projects. Drawing on personal experience working near Grande Prairie, I speculate that a large gas cap over an oil field might be used to extend the life of a field instead of addressing environmental cleanup obligations, calling this a likely costly error. I also reference the prime minister’s recent statement that the U.S. is misleading and argue Canada should not follow a “mega pipeline drill, baby drill” agenda.

On public engagement, I describe significant opposition in Olds, describing “major outcry” and strong grassroots organizing, including people handing out posters and flyers and encouraging Albertans to file statements of concern against the project. I mention an upcoming open house in Olds on June 24, to be attended by the premier and local MLA Sawyer, and question whether Grande Prairie has been given a similar opportunity. For the upcoming open house in the Grande Prairie region, they say they hope the project is “shut down immediately,” arguing Greenview County should prioritize supporting farmers and the agricultural economy and focus on water restoration and cleanup operations instead. I suggest stopping the project now to limit any damages O’Leary’s business could claim, referencing the Grassy Mountain coal project as a precedent where the answer was to “settle.”

I explain my participation a recent webinar through Public Interest Alberta was to inform the public about environmental liabilities and the impacts of data centres on water use, cybersecurity, and water security, describing these facilities as “non‑starters” and noting similar projects have been stopped elsewhere. I see data centres as another face of fossil fuel expansion and argue that carbon capture and storage is not a genuine climate solution, based on their industry experience. I insist fossil fuel expansion for hydrogen, LNG export, or data facilities—especially those they say could benefit “nefarious actors”—must not proceed, and that public opposition and on‑the‑ground action are the only ways to stop such projects.

Regarding the webinar’s reception, I report that hundreds attended and feedback was “really good, really strong,” and they mention a planned follow‑up interview on their platform “The Gravity Well” and further efforts by environmental organizations to keep sharing information. I warn that data centres should not be appealing to Albertans because they bring in large corporate and billionaire interests that do not help the province through challenging times.

When asked why I care, I explain how this is about “our present and our future,” citing their two children and Alberta’s role as a headwater province that should focus on restoring water rather than extracting more fossil fuels. They reference the “keep it in the ground” philosophy and carbon pricing as concepts originating in the oil and gas industry, arguing that remaining resources are not worth extracting and would cause irreparable harm, which motivates them to do this work even without pay.

Here’s the link to Eagle Andersen’s article, please follow him as he will be attending the open house tomorrow and hopes to gain a statement from the Sturgeon Lake Chief. Jody MacPherson of is following the Wonder Valley story closely: https://www.theenergymix.com/hidden-wonder-valley/.

• Recentering decision-making around water and land restoration, not energy growth.

• Recognizing we are in a polycrisis: seeing multiple and additive crises with the common root causes: extraction, accumulation, and exploitation.

• Unwinding the neoliberal playbook of manufactured scarcity (cutting of public services), division, deregulation, private wealth accumulation, and stunting of our imaginations.

• Reclaiming the term “economy” as “caring for one another”. Own the economy you wish to foster.

• Grow alternatives which include principles of reciprocity, solidarity, and equity.

• Look to other jurisdictions, including the Canadian Quality of Life Framework, to help shape your local well-being economy.

We hope to have a similar meeting in Calgary this fall to continue this effort, stay tuned! A special shout out to for all of Nate Pike’s help in gaining support for recalls.

Should you wish to join Lindsay and I in shaping a well-being economy in Alberta through the PIA Democracy Task Force in Alberta, please email Brad Lafortune of PIA here: brad.lafortune@pialberta.org. Help Brad (or I) know what you’d like to see from the Democracy Task Force.

The Gravity Well | Public Interest Alberta Collaboration

I had the pleasure of joining Brad Lafortune of PIA in co-hosting a webinar on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) data center explosion happening in Alberta, across North America, and the world. Locally, the United Conservative Party of Alberta did not run on a platform of AI water and power consumption or foreign surveillance intensification. The webinar features Representative Melanie Sachs of the House in Maine. Melanie created and passed a non-partisan AI ban bill, ultimately vetoed by a single elected official. Melanie shows the specific project at play in her area and its derelict conditions.

It’s vital Albertans follow the success, and learn from the failures, of other jurisdictions in order to stop AI data center construction in Alberta and Canada.

Stay tuned for more updates on this from Brad, Lindsay and I.

Sign Matilda's Change.org Petition!

Jenny:
Okay, thank you for joining me today, Matilda. Let’s start with who you are, what you’re up to and just a little bit about you for people listening. Thank you.

Matilda:

Yeah, thank you for having me. My name is Matilda. I’m a grade 10 student at William Aberhart High School. And yeah, this is my project to get free feminine hygiene product dispensers in the girls’ bathroom.

Jenny:

Excellent. And remind us, today’s a special day, right? What’s today for folks who don’t know?

Matilda:

It’s Menstrual Equity Day and Menstrual Awareness Day. A day to make people aware of people that have periods and how they deal with them and the barriers that are in their way and just kind of an advocacy day.

Jenny:

Amazing. Out of curiosity, is there anywhere people can go to find information about that on today?

Matilda:

Well, there’s a website that I like or an Instagram account called The Period Purse. I follow them. They’re a Canadian-based organization and they have a lot of good information.

Jenny:

Amazing. Thank you so much for that, Matilda. Okay. You’re trying to make sure that feminine hygiene projects are free for any student that needs them in high school, at your high school, correct? Yes. And so what does that look like? Why are you doing that? What’s the rationale behind the project?

Matilda:

Well, I just thought that it kind of started with a feeling that I had when I got my period in a bathroom one day and there was nothing there. I was like, “Well, there’s got to be other girls like me.” And it was a really, really bad feeling and there was nobody else there and I didn’t know that my school had stuff, which they don’t. I was like, “Well, I want to do something to stop this.”

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s nuts. I can actually remember a very similar scenario, not just once but many times when I was in high school where I felt I forgot to prepare myself. And yeah, it’s also something that we don’t talk about enough because it does feel like it’s your own thing that happens and not really just an understanding of what it’s like for before it comes kind of thing.

Matilda:

Yeah. Especially in high schools, there’s lots of stigma around it. People will just say, “I’m not feeling well. I need to go home to a teacher instead of like, I’ve got my period. Nobody will ask each other for products when they need them.” And people will just pretend they don’t have it or they’ll laugh about it like, “Ha ha, I got my period when it’s a serious biological thing.”

Jenny:

Yeah. I’ve heard there are certain cultures that will celebrate it and it’ll be a big moment for people and you’re right. That’s amazing to hear that it hasn’t changed much since I was in high school because I remember having all of those same experiences of shame almost with it or like trying to hide it or just make light of it and not take it seriously. And a lot of problems come with it too. I remember having lots of pain and in some cases where it was debilitating. So yeah, it’s something we should really understand better and be okay with talking about, right?

Matilda:

Yeah, definitely. And that’s like a tangent to my project, of course, my main thing is to get the feminine hygiene products, but I also want to increase awareness and increase people talking about it at my school.

Jenny:

Amazing. So important. I really appreciate you taking this initiative. So how can people help? What can people do to get involved? Let’s start with adults like me and then we’ll talk about students.

Matilda:

I have a change.org petition. So you can go on their website and search for William Aberhart and my petition will pop right up and you can sign that. You can reach out to if you have kids or if you know people who have children at schools, you can email their principal or the administration to ask what their kind of situation is. You can get involved in parent councils or you can email school board trustees and MLAs.

Sign Petition for Aberhard to Flow Free

Jenny:

Amazing. Thank you. Those are all awesome and I will try to make sure to give as much information as possible when I post this conversation for folks. What about students? How can students get more involved in what you’re doing, Matilda?

Matilda:

When you’re at school and you have something you can first of all just talk about it, even if it’s a friend or two friends, that’s people that know about it. You can mention it to your guidance counsellor in their appointment. You can insist with your teachers and your principals and your assistant principals tell them that this is something that we need because the more students that bring up this issue, the more likely they are to move forward with it.

Jenny:

Yeah, absolutely. And you’re right. It’s something that we should be expecting of our classrooms, our schools, I should say, because the thing that we think is important is the thing that we will start feeling is okay and safe to talk about, things like that. Amazing. I can see the value in what you’re doing. It’s wonderful stuff. So can you talk a little bit about the state of education for you, Matilda? What’s it like these days? Do you have concerns? What are your thoughts for people?

Matilda:

Yeah. So schools right now, the class sizes are so big that, for example, in my math class, half of the students needed help in the trigonometry unit, but the teacher could only help a few of those students because there wasn’t enough support for all of them and all of their questions because each student had multiple questions and they needed the teacher to go over it multiple times. It’s just crazy. It’s too big and it’s always so loud and sometimes there’s not even enough desks in the classrooms for everybody to sit at.

Jenny:

Thank you for saying that because I’ve heard people try and tell me online that that’s not true. And I had heard that William Aberhart was one of those schools that there literally was not enough seats for students to be in in some classes. It’s crazy.

Matilda:

Yeah. It’s ridiculous. And even in classes like yoga, there’s not enough space in the yoga room for like 35 people to do yoga and not crash into each other every pose we’re doing.

Jenny:

Right. I can just imagine. I’ve been in a yoga class that’s packed and that 35 is nuts. That’s a huge room that’s required for that. Wow. Well, thank you so much, Matilda. Is there anything else you want to add before we close? I’m hearing that people should go to change.org. They should check out your petition. They should talk to the schools that their students go to, make sure that this is accessible and that students should talk about this amongst themselves and with their guidance counsellor and with their teachers and make it a priority. Anything more you want to add?

Matilda:

Students can talk to their parents too. And if you support me, follow me on Instagram at @abeflowsfree and I believe we’re doing a bake sale this month or maybe next, so I’ll follow up

Jenny:

With that. Excellent. So they can look to your Instagram, which is ABE Flows [Free]. Is that correct?

Matilda:

Yes.

Jenny: Great. So @Abeflowsfree on Instagram, find out about the bake sale that’s coming up shortly. Thank you for all you’re doing, Matilda. Make sure you poke me when you’re doing that so I can make sure people know to get out there and get some baked goods with you, support the cause.

Matilda:

Yeah, for sure. Thank you so much.

Jenny:

Thank you. Take care for now.

Find where to FightBackNow.ca

I had a great conversation with Gil McGowan, in it we mention separatism isn’t the only problem. There is a broader MAGA agenda at play in Alberta and across Canada. Please tune in around 14:00 to learn more here:

The WaterNotCoal.ca Deadline is approaching!

Thank you to Corb Lund for taking the time to speak with me on ’s Meidas Canada. In this we address the misinformation at work in Alberta.

Also, Mayor Craig Snodgrass of High River and I spoke candidly about who is pushing the coal agenda, how it is a bad idea to even talk about it. That the moment the shovel hits the ground we’ve lost. These coal projects cannot proceed. I’ve heard Craig say he will stand in this project’s way if need be. That is what is at stake, let’s not let it go there!

Please sign and if you’ve signed text 10 friends to sign before EOD June 6th!

Find a place to sign!

Stop AI Data Centers in Alberta

Town Halls in Grande Prairie and Olds:

1. Wonder Valley Project Open House hosted by AIM Land Services

• DATE: Thursday, June 4, 2026

• TIME: 4:00 - 7:00 pm

• LOCATION: Grovedale Community Hall

2. Smith and Sawyer Government of Alberta Town Hall

• DATE: Wednesday, June 24, 2026

• TIME: 5:30 doors open

• LOCATION: Pomeroy Inn & Suites at Olds College (4601 46 Ave, Olds)

Learn Why You Should Join the Fight to Stop AI

Thank you to Brad Lafortune of Public Interest Alberta for giving me the opportunity to co-host this LIVE webinar regarding the AI data center war for our water, energy, and security.

Brad and I have another interview planned soon that you won’t want to miss!

TAKE ACTION: Use the Land Lovers Network’s Guide

Fill out the Ghost-Kananaskis Sub-Regional Planning Engagement Survey

Help Shape the Future of Ghost-Kananaskis

The Government of Alberta is currently gathering public input on the Ghost-Kananaskis Sub-regional Plan, a land-use planning process that will guide future decisions for the Ghost and Kananaskis area west of Calgary. This region is part of Alberta’s Eastern Slopes and plays a vital role in protecting headwaters, biodiversity, recreation opportunities, and climate resilience. The provincial survey is open until June 5, 2026.  

This matters because the decisions made through this process could influence how the landscape is managed for years to come, including how cumulative impacts from recreation, roads, forestry, grazing, tourism, and other land uses are addressed. Healthy headwaters are essential public infrastructure: they support clean drinking water, drought and flood resilience, wildlife habitat, and downstream communities. Calgary Climate Hub’s Headwaters Protection and Restoration Advocacy Campaign in partnership with Land Lovers Network’s Eastern Slopes Bioregional Organizing work show that community input can help turn shared values into clearer direction for long-term headwaters protection and restoration.  

What you can do:

Take the provincial Ghost-Kananaskis survey before June 5, and use Land Lovers Network’s survey guide to help respond with strong, watershed-focused input. The guide is designed to help people speak up for clean water, ecological integrity, responsible recreation, and long-term protection of the Eastern Slopes.

Take action here:

Provincial engagement page:

Government Submission Page

Land Lovers Network survey guide:

Follow This Guide

Join the Land Lovers Network for more updates and opportunities to stand up for water and the land.

Join the Land Lovers Network

I Gotta Have Faith, Faith, Faith!

Lastly, but certainly not least, I am crazy proud of this compilation conversation I had with four of the more than 200 faith leaders who were signatories of the opposition letter against the anti-human rights agenda of Christian Nationalists. An agenda that is clearly present in the Government of Alberta’s policies including: dismantling public healthcare, education, and environmental stewardship on the backs of our children, the innocent and at risk populations. Please watch and let me know what you learned!

Time to fight back while having some fun, see out there tomorrow!

Chelsea then explains her current federal petition (E‑7340), originally rooted in Section 35 treaty rights but now focused on asking the federal government to investigate the Alberta Prosperity Project for foreign interference and links to U.S. actors, including Trump‑aligned officials. The petition quickly gained about 10,000 signatures in its first 72 hours and has since surpassed 15,000, with 25 days left at the time of recording, and Chelsea emphasizes that large signature counts make it harder for Parliament to ignore.

Sign the Petition here!

Chelsea and I argue that Premier Danielle Smith and the UCP are effectively aligned with separatist forces, citing Smith’s trips to the U.S., her mixed messaging on separatism, and the use of a “firewall letter” strategy attributed to Stephen Harper that seeks to isolate Alberta economically and leverage separatist sentiment to force federal concessions such as Senate reform. They warn that this approach is “playing with fire,” drawing parallels to Brexit and suggesting that even a partial separatist vote could be used by Donald Trump to claim Albertans want “liberation,” especially given Alberta’s large oil reserves and Trump’s openly stated ambitions. I situate this within a broader “MAGA and separatist sandwich,” linking Alberta politics to Project 2025 and a wider right‑wing agenda aimed at dismantling public institutions, entrenching a billionaire class, and promoting a supremacist order.

The conversation also highlights a long list of grievances against the Alberta government: attacks on workers’ rights, attempts to mine the Rocky Mountains, gerrymandering, creation of a provincial police force, underfunding education, benefiting from war‑driven windfall profits, stoking separatism, cutting disability benefits, threatening pensions and CPP, restricting books and critical thinking in schools, and undermining ecological stability, which they argue is essential for any functioning economy. They stress the centrality of treaties as law, not optional policy, and note that Premier Smith has recently spoken about rewriting treaty law, which they see as part of a revisionist and ongoing attack on Indigenous rights.

Chelsea draws on her previous House of Commons petitions on Gaza—one of which gathered 30,000 signatures in 30 days and was followed by a symbolic airdrop of aid—to show that petitions can influence federal discourse and action, even if responses are often limited to explanatory letters. She argues that legal victories, such as recent First Nations court wins on Section 35 and treaty rights, are crucial but insufficient when facing actors like Donald Trump who, in her view, disregard international law, as illustrated by his role in the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president. Her core fear is that a separatist referendum, even with modest support, could be used as a pretext for U.S. intervention in Alberta.

We call for escalating but non‑violent disruption modeled on successful right‑wing tactics, such as highway slow‑rolls and occupations, while repurposing them for the public good. Chelsea advocates repeating the message that “THE UCP IS THE SEPARATIST PARTY” to reach moderates and notes that separatist supporters have been flooding UCP memberships and online spaces. We cite examples such as MLA Jason Stephan’s resignation after pro‑separatist writings, Rob Anderson’s involvement in separatist meetings, polling showing UCP supporters as the strongest base for separatism, and a committee process on the Forever Canadian petition that was allegedly pre‑empted by a pro‑UCP press release, demonstrating democratic erosion.

The episode closes by promoting multiple ongoing and upcoming efforts: other federal petitions (including E-7269 on limiting the notwithstanding clause,

Sign e-7269 here!

banning AI data centers, [House of Commons petition # e-7427]

Sign e-7427 to stop AI here!

and a forthcoming petition about the U.S. ambassador’s use of voter lists), and a June 27 multi‑city, now multi‑provincial rally under the banner “Albertans for United Canada in solidarity with Treaty 6, 7 and 8,” coordinated through Chelsea’s emerging “United Alberta Collection” and website unitedab.ca. That rally aims to bring together Indigenous speakers, recall activists, labour groups, Palestinian protesters, and other movements in Calgary, Edmonton, and Victoria, emphasizing unity, relationship‑building, and mutual encouragement as a way to “charge batteries” and make it harder for the government to ignore public opposition. Chelsea ends by framing the current moment as a “war for our democracy,” urging people to show up in large numbers this summer, occupy the legislature if necessary, and ensure Alberta does not become the “51st state,” while I stress that petitions and street actions can be both effective and joyful forms of civil resistance.

Thank you, Chelsea, I hope to see The Gravity Well community on Friday in Calgary, I’ll be at all three events with the WaterNotCoal.ca petition and a Handmaids’ Tale costume.

Key themes which emerged throughout the four separate discussions are best summarized by Reverend Dr. John Pentland: hospitality, spirituality, social justice, and risk. Now is the time for faith leaders, all leaders really, to take risks. It has never been more important than right now.

Additionally, plurality is explained throughout this conversation. The importance of seeking different views and multiple outcomes. Not seeking one unified goal.

I am happy to hold more conversation with these leaders or others who support or have signed the letter of opposition. Here’s the full transcript to assist your listening.

Introductions to The Gravity Well and Alberta Faith Leaders

Jenny (00:00:04):

Welcome to the Gravity Well podcast with me, Jenny Yeremiy. I host the Gravity Well to celebrate and share the stories of people looking to empower others with the knowledge and skills required to reestablish stability in our communities. My mission is to work through heavy issues in conversation and process in order to lighten the load.

I acknowledge that I live on the traditional territories of Treaty seven and Metis Districts five and six. The treaties and self-governance agreements established by indigenous peoples are created to honour the laws of the land, maintain balance with nature and give back to uphold reciprocal relationships.

This knowledge and intention are what guide the Gravity Well conversations. I ask for genuine dialogue, real hearts, and openness to different perspectives. This is your invitation to find common ground with me.

Positions taken by participants, either individually or collectively, do not necessarily represent those of the Gravity Well.

This podcast is dedicated to the natural world, our children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and all future generations. The Gravity Well is on YouTube and streaming wherever you get your podcasts.

If you like what you see and hear, remember to like and subscribe!

Thank you so much for joining me, Leslie. I’m super pleased to have Leslie Gardner in the studio today. We are today speaking about spirituality and about the recent meeting that the provincial government had with some specific religious leaders and just to break down this issue and opportunity together. Leslie, can we start with a little bit about you, your spiritual journey and what brought you here today? Thank you.

Leslie:

Sure. Thanks, Jenny. I’ve had varied exposure to different religious organizations in my life. Started off Anglican and then as a kid in the country with a Baptist church and then as an adult, became Roman Catholic and I’m now participating in congregations that are Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. I’m also part of a group here in Lethbridge who started what we call the Lethbridge Inclusive Catholic Community Fellowship led by a woman priest.

Jenny:

Fabulous. And remind me, Leslie, when we spoke earlier, you were mentioning you do studies at the University of Alberta, is that correct?

Leslie:

Yes. Yeah. I’m also part of a community around St. Stephens College, which is a theology college on the campus affiliated with the University of Alberta and had its roots in the United Church. And we’re still very much involved with the United Church, but it’s also much broader than that in the master’s programs and demand programs that we offer.

Jenny:

Incredible. Thank you for all that work. What a journey. Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, now evangelical and united. That’s wonderful. You’ve dabbled in everything Christian, is that right?

Leslie:

Not exactly, but lots of influence from important people that you meet, influencers of various kinds, people you admire. What do they have to share with you? And I’ve been really fortunate there.

Bill:

Hello, everyone. My name is Bill Way and I lived in Alberta for 50 years in Calgary and now I’m five years on Vancouver Islands. My spiritual journey is pretty interesting. I was born Catholic and was brought up to go to church and be a good boy. Around my years in high school and university, I joined a folk choir and I started singing at church. That little tiny version of the Catholic church really appealed to me and we had families that we raised with each other’s children and a really good community. And in that journey, I met a lovely lady from the United Church and my wife’s father was a minister. She was a preacher’s kid. I was Catholic. There’s lots of things that weren’t good about this, but basically that just kept adding to the diversity of my spiritual background. We raised our kids with a concept called double belonging, which means that our kids were too young to know that we’re going to go to church at the Catholic church at nine and then we’re going to jump in the car and we’re going to go to the United Church at 10:30.

They just think that’s what people do. By the time they got to be teenagers, they’d kind of had enough of church. We just sort of did that. And I got more and more involved with the United Church. I actually, without becoming a member, I became secretary of the Church Council. I was on the committee that hired and fired ministers and I continued on with the music too. I was in the choir in the United Church. Interestingly enough, this strange phenomenon called the Roman Catholic women priests came into my life. Not only did I just jump back into the Catholic church, I loved the fact that the RCWP movement abandons a lot of the things about the Catholic church that I don’t like, like exclusivity. In the past, I’d say 10 years, I’ve been an active member of RCWP Canada. About my spiritual journey, it includes my travel.

When we were travelling together, we have travelled to Turkey, to Thailand, to Guatemala and in all of these places, the dominant religion is not the one I was brought up with. And I just learned, you know what? There’s plenty of pathways to a spiritual life. There’s nothing exclusive about it. And the more you kind of hold onto a belief and say, “This is my truth and you better accept my truth.” That is like a bell ringing in my ear saying, “You’re actually not in the right path at all. “ In a nutshell, I’ve gone from Catholic to United. Now I’m back to a new version of Catholic.

Jenny:

Incredible. And I love how you said you, well, first of all, the double belonging, providing space for both of you to continue that faith journey and then eventually wrap around to something that was merging the two ideas together in a sense. It’s so neat. And I love the idea of the dropping some of the things that you didn’t like about the one faith that you were raised in and being able to carry forward a message that you still can get behind. Wonderful.

John:

My name’s John. I am the lead minister at church in Chicago. I grew up in Ontario and moved out here in serving a rural parish for four years where I learned a lot. And then a suburban church in Southern Calgary for 10 years and three years at Calgary, an area United Way. A nonprofit in the city where I learned a lot about how the cities are connected to the great people that are doing amazing work within the city. And then I’ve been at Hillhurst United for 21 years, which is a historic building over 115 years. We’ve been in the neighbourhood. Four practices, hospitality. We believe you got to eat and drink together to know each other better through spirituality. Religion’s got a bad name in the world. We seek to live with religion, honouring the soul and diversity of each person. Social justice, how do we take what we say and sing and pray into the world to transform it and love?

And the last one is risk. Jesus’ most common phrase is being unafraid. And right now we’re living in a time where religious people and secular people are fearful and encouraged to be fearful and hateful is judgmental and we need to risk being open, honest, vulnerable, and loving. That’s a bit about who I am. I cycle every day. I got four kids, a dog and two cats.

Jenny:

Amazing, John. Thank you so much for that wonderful summary. I think those principles are just something I will absolutely underscore as we go through here. It’s just so nice to hear the thought of being courageous now and the importance of people to recognize that fear is growing and that it takes courage and leadership to overcome it. I’m pleased to have Reverend Samaya Oakley in the studio today. First, can we start with an introduction please, Samaya? Thank you.

Samaya:

Absolutely. I am privileged and honoured to serve the fine people at Calgary Unitarians. I had the delightful pleasure of serving as their intern minister back in 2013, 2014. I went away and did ministry in other contexts and other settings in 2023. Early in the year, it was like, “Hi, I need full-time ministry.” And Calgary was looking for full-time ministry and our styles aligned and I ended up joining them as their minister in August of 2023, 10 years later. It was quite a serendipitous connection that we had. I knew them, they followed me. It was a match kind of made in, I’m going to say in heaven, haha we have been doing great ministry together over these last three years that I’ve been with them.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Have you always been a part of the Unitarians movement, Samaya?

Samaya:

I’ve known the Unitarians at a point in my life when my life blew up, my career blew up, my marriage blew up and I was on my own with a four-year-old and two different friends in two different social circles said, “You’d find a home in the Unitarian Congregation.” I ended up joining the congregation in North Vancouver. They’re the congregation I credit with making me the minister that I am today. They really supported me in my path and I speak very fondly of them. Just about 30 some years ago that I have followed the path and I work continentally as well as nationally. I did youth ministry for 15 years and then I officially became a minister and ordained and still do comprehensive values-based sexuality education training, our whole lives program that we run involved nationally with our ministers, the UU ministers of Canada, just finishing my second term three years as my president.

Served as three years another time and just finishing my second term in my three years. So quite involved, lot of professional development. I tend to focus a lot of mine in the area of sexuality and also racial justice. Those are two very strong passions of mine. We have a comprehensive values-based sexuality education program that I mentioned that we’re going to be kicking off this fall. We’re starting with kindergarten grade one program and also a young adult program that will be kicking off, but I’m a facilitator in seven different levels of age-appropriate sexuality education.

Jenny:

Yeah, that sounds very important. I think it would be helpful for people to understand what age-appropriate sexual education looks like and knowing that it is coming from faith leaders, that this is with the best moral and community interest in mind. Yeah, wonderful.

Samaya:

Yeah. One of the things I think that really sold me in Unitarian Universalism is I was sitting around a table just after I joined the NorthShore congregation and it was the first time in my life I had ever sat down. I was young, relatively young, early 30s, that’s young-ish. And it was the first time in my life I sat down with humanists and atheists and mystics, people like me who come from a pagan background and how enlivening that conversation was and how much it opened my perspective and my view on the world because up until then having been raised in a pretty traditional Catholic religion, there’s one answer. And in this conversation there were so many different answers and they were all based on people’s lived experiences, people really passionately looking at their own worldview. I say, when you come through our doors, your work is just beginning because we’re not going to tell you what redemption means or salvation means or how to live a good life.

That is actually something that we encourage people to do for themselves. We will journey with you in that spiritual practice and we will be there with you as you ask those big questions of life that we all ask of life. What does it mean to be a good person? How does my life have meaning and purpose? What is it that I can do and give to the world and how can I do that? How do I make sense of the world in which I live? We don’t have the answers to that. We will journey with you in that exploration. And I think that that is such a beautiful gift that it’s one of the reasons why I signed this letter because of our tradition’s deep commitment to religious pluralism, the inherent dignity of every person and the importance of maintaining a healthy boundary between government and any one religious voice.

That is such an important thing for me.

Jenny:

Oh, that’s wonderful. You’re making me remember because just to give you a litle bit of my religious background, I was baptized in the United Church but went to Catholic school because of proximity. But what I remember most about Catholic school is high school where we learned about the other religions, like you said. And to me what was really neat about that was finding the common threads between each of the religions. I think that was probably the time when I really enjoyed religious studies the most is learning about those different ways of approaching things, but finding those underlying moral values. Is there anything more you’d like to say by my way of explaining pluralism for folks just to understand that better?

Samaya:

In Unitarian Universalism, my congregation here in Calgary, we have people who are about humanists, about atheists. We also have mystics. We also have people coming from various other world traditions as well and that is celebrated here. It becomes part of the tapestry of who you are as a human being. And it is in that interchange in that tension between holding what is really important for me and listening deeply to what is important for you and somehow finding a way through that. It’s living in the tension, living always in that tension and being comfortable with discomfort.

Jenny:

Wow, that is a really important lesson, I think, for all of us right now. Why don’t we underscore the letter please?

Can you help people understand what was in the letter, why did you sign it and the purpose of it? Thank you.

Samaya (00:16:15):

Here’s one of the things sat with me that I was really sort of thinking about is that the gathering was a Christian gathering. I do understand that public officials regularly attend to get at events and faith leaders and myself and premiers. We should all be free to participate in the life of our own religious communities. And I know for us, we would welcome opportunities to host elected officials within our own traditions. And at the same time, I don’t think the heart of the concern is about any one of those elements in isolation. It’s about what that event represented in the broader public context. When a sitting premier convenes or lends significant weight to a gathering that is framed as shaping public policy through a particular lens, particularly one that appears ideologically narrow, I’m wondering what message it sends to those who are not in that circle.

I’m wondering about how it affects the perceived independence and inclusion of other faith communities. And that’s a place where I hear resonance with another concern that I’ve seen named is about the tone and the impact of the event and whether or not it contributed to a sense of a shared civic belonging. I actually wondered if it might even narrow it.

Jenny:

Yes, absolutely. One thing I will say is not only are you concerned about policy being shaped by what has been said in that, there has been policy shaped by this narrow group of people, I’ll be specific. There’s an organization called Cardus, which is very aligned with evangelical Christian faith and is during the strike, for example, the teacher’s strike, they made specific recommendations for the province to take and all of those recommendations were taken by the government. There is evidence of that. And then this event was in my mind then solidifying that for people because it was narrow in its invitation list. Is that right?

Samaya:

That’s correct. Yeah. I think public policy needs to be shaped for the people who are living in a place where the policy is going to be affected. And does that policy really fit for all Albertans, for instance? I don’t think so. And to add to that, it’s also in the public realm where there is one religious voice and I want to counter that with another religious voice because there are other religious voices that are very important and need to be taken into consideration. And that’s where the rub is for me.

Jenny:

Right. I’m going to underscore that there are at least 180 last I looked faith leaders who signed this from many ... Oh, now it’s 202. Sorry.

Samaya:

202. Okay.

Jenny:

And people should see it’s many different faith backgrounds, Anglican, there’s United, there’s Mennonite, there’s Unitarian, there’s the United Church of Canada. I know there’s a Catholic group in here because I am trying to seek voices. There’s an evangelical church in here as well. So many different faiths have taken the time to sign this, faith leaders, excuse me, and members, I should say, who signed this. And I’m just going to underscore some of the things that were mentioned in the letter for people. They speak to a public life is one that makes room for all voices and not to diminish some voices. You want to have a gathering that is shaped by welcoming and humility and that it shouldn’t be shaped by privilege or a limited access and that many traditions are not being represented in that. To understand that’s that plurality piece you spoke to again, helping people who are in the margins and understanding that there should be a diverse chorus of faith communities who are helping shape the province that we share.

Anything else in there that I missed? I know there was something about diversity as well.

Samaya:

When I listen to you list all of the traditions, they all tend to be traditions that have come out of Christianity. That raises a question for me. Where are the indigenous voices in that? Where are voices that come from, let’s say the Sikh tradition or the Muslim tradition or the Jewish tradition? I’m wondering about that because what I would love to see is a more inclusive vision of religious life in Alberta. It’s not necessarily a Christian vision of religious life in Alberta. As I said, there are humanists and atheists in our congregations in the province and how does that impact their view? I just really want to highlight that. When we look at public policy as being shaped by one tradition and one viewpoint, is it really public policy that benefits us all?

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you. So important to mention that this is limited what seems like to Christian views so far. I think I would encourage anybody who’s listening from another faith, please reach out to the organizer of this. I’m certain there’s room for everyone to sign. It would be great, like you say, and maybe I’ve missed it, but to have some other voices on this protest list, if you will.

Bill:

I found out about it through the Roman Catholic woman priest in one of my churches. And as soon as I got involved with it, I said, “Ho, ho, okay, this is not the right pathway.” And what I understand about the letter is that instead of embracing the message from one branch of the church and then try to make that into government policy, to me, that rings true about the Catholic church in about 300 AD when they decided, “Well, you know what? It’s okay to have Rome in charge of the religion. And by the way, it’s now the law and you’re going to be crucified if you don’t get involved with this. “ I’m getting a little bit emotional, but

I really believe that all major religions have a special message about taking care of each other and especially in terms of taking care of people who have no voice, people who have less education, people who are basically different.

Again, I studied quite a bit of Buddhism and a little bit of Islam and certainly Christianity. That base message is, yeah, take care of those people who don’t have a voice because it’s your responsibility You just do that. I was concerned because the event that was described, I think it was May the 5th, really looked like it was exclusive to people with money and really inviting people who had the same echo chamber about what the message was all about. In other words, let’s try to do something for the privileged people, the powerful people, let’s try and get the wealthy people and we’ll gather them together, which I know is a recipe for political strength that if you can tap into people with money and all that, it’s good for politics. It sucks for spirituality. And I guess I’d rather talk about spirituality than religion because the word religion itself just breaks us up into groups.

I’m not into that. I’m into gathering the groups together.

Jenny:

That’s such a wonderful message. And yes, it’s again, a theme I’ve heard from the others who have spoken in this is the importance of standing up for those who don’t have a voice and standing up for those that are marginalized, who are considered different and are not feeling supported in society rather than the ones that are well established and have the power already, let’s say. I’d

John:

Just like to begin by quickly saying clearly this is not a prayer breakfast.

This is the present government lending its ear and its authority to a movement within the province that wants to replace secular law with one religion’s rules, which is Christianity.

As a Christian minister and leader for 65 years I’ve been in the Christian community, the Jesus that is being portrayed by the right wing in this province is not the Jesus of the Bible. This is Jesus that’s manipulated to fit a particular lens on the world.

My first comment would be that this breakfast was not inclusive, that it was who was targeted to the right wing conservative movement within the province. We did have a United Church ministry who attended and his report back to our community was that a group of people who certainly have on religious view and that’s Christian and one particular agenda, which is right wing. He says another talks about banning abortion, eliminating made, promoting anti-trans view in the culture and opposing the anti-hate law.

All of these things are religious questions and issues and concerns. And the fact that these things are talked about without recognizing the interreligious culture of Alberta is really important was at a breakfast last week in Calgary and there were nine different religious communities gathered, 250 people with interfaith, which is far more representative of Alberta and certainly of the world. Christianity is one religion among many. And it was wonderful to hear that all religions are about human rights, all Christians, Buddhist speaks, et cetera. And we need to be standing up and speaking out where these kinds of narrow religious quote unquote statements are being made. Just in short, it wasn’t interfaith. It was not representative of even the Christians. The United Church certainly is more progressive than some of the other churches, but we certainly honour and respect and work with the Catholic community, the Baptist community, the Seventh Day Adventist community, and the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The diversity even within Christianity is something that we have to honour and respect and be engaged with. It was faulty and two basis just to end this. It wasn’t inclusive of other world religions and it wasn’t inclusive of the diversity of the Christian faith itself.

Jenny:

Brilliant. One thing you hit home with me is this, if we look at the goals, if we look at the goals and the objectives of this event and try to actually tie that back to Jesus, back to the teachings of the New Testament, where are the examples of those things being fulfilled? To me, it’s the idea of the co-opting of Jesus and what he stood for that is just so important to underscore for people. Thank you. And just the fact that it’s not interfaith even, it’s not representing Christianity as a whole, let alone any other religion. Thank you for that.

Leslie:

I am a believer in free speech and the right to gather and I value diversity. What that means is that not everybody is going to think the way I do and that’s okay with me. I think healthy debate is important. I also have values so that’s what disturbed me about the event because it seemed to be championing and in an exclusionary kind of way, a certain way of being and living and thinking as our letter, the faith leader letter says, Alberta is home to people of many backgrounds, many faiths, many ways of living a good life. That’s what disturbed me was that the event seemed to be very much excluding some people and setting one way of being and thinking and living up as Not only the best way, but the only way. I think that that’s shortsighted.

Jenny:

Yeah, thank you. It’s very important to represent all people and all faiths in the province. So thank you so much for taking a stand for that and making it be known. Leslie,

Can you chat a little bit about the role of faith leaders that you see today, especially in these uncertain times that we are in? The importance of terms like plurality and diversity, which you already mentioned, please.

Leslie (00:30:28):

Absolutely. I think it sits with that word leadership. Faith leaders are leaders. And I think one of the most important things that leaders can do for us is give us a vision of the kind of world that we want to live in and the kind of people that we want to be and that we aspire to be. And I really appreciated the values that were spoken to by the faith leaders in their letter of welcome and humility and inclusion. If you believe in diversity, then it is diversity for all in all circumstances and faith leaders can lead us in seeing the opportunities for doing exactly that. And of course, faith leaders can encourage all of us to participate in different events that practice the values and the vision that they speak about and that we ascribe to them and that we try to be like in a Christian faith, we have a model there of someone who absolutely practiced inclusion and we have an understanding in the writing that’s left behind about the importance of what’s called God’s preference for the poor.

If we understand poverty in a broad kind of way, then I think our faith leaders can help us see all the ways in society from social structures and policies that result in people being “poor”, that it isn’t just economically poor but held back and barriers to success in all kinds of ways. That’s what I mean when I say the poor.

I think the faith leaders have a real role in translating what that phrase “preference for the poor” means in this troubled world.

That’s what I would expect. Faith leaders are role models and cheerleaders and in all kinds of ways are talking about what we should be doing and show us what we should be doing by the way they live their lives.

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s wonderful. I’m glad for you to underscore this concept of preference for the poor. Sounds like a faith leader’s role is to help ensure that those barriers and those potential exclusionary issues are addressed and that that is the focus is to try and make sure that that is something that is supported and lifted through the church. Is that right?

Leslie:

Yes, exactly. Exactly. Another phrase that we can turn to coming for abundance, that we’re expected to live a life of abundance and personal alive, alive in all the different ways that we can be alive. Church as one of the holders, wisdom holders has a role to play again in terms of interpreting what that means day-to-day. What does that abundance mean and how do we celebrate that abundance but also make that abundance available? It has to do with access, access to abundance.

If we believe that the abundance is there and I do, then how do we help every one of us access that abundance and break down barriers and build ladders and lift people up, lift people up? Our job is to lift one another up.

Jenny:

That’s wonderful. Yes. This term abundance is so particularly important right now in these uncertain times. The thought of individualism being at a peak right now, people feeling isolated, not necessarily feeling in community with their, say their neighbours or their organizations. To me, that’s one of the main issues is this thought of competition and this thought of individualism and that can lead to less abundant thinking and rather scarcity thinking. It’s just so important to help people see that.

Leslie:

What happens when 5,000 people share what they have? There is enough if we know how to share and if we know what exactly the structures are that will promote that kind of sharing and that’s what we need. We need those ideas and values of sharing and the collaboration that sort of the other side of what you’re talking about, the individualism. In the West we learn from our historians and our philosophers that we have a very strong culture that emphasizes individual freedom and that’s a good thing. It was a good thing at its time given the context that it was developed in. But I really like the phrase that says, “You know what? Your freedom to swing your arms stops where my chin begins.” And I think it’s important for us all to think about not only our own s, but our collective chin and other people’s chins and how much more abundance we receive when we’re in it together, when we’re all in it together, again, trying to lift one another up as opposed to me trying to get to the top and climbing over whoever is there so we can accomplish so much more together collaboratively as a team, thinking more about in this group, whatever this group is, who’s in the best position right now, who has the resources, who has the energy, who has what’s needed to do what we can all see as needed for the group right now.

That’ll change day to day depending on what’s happening in each person’s environment and life. But if we think of ourselves collectively, all working for the collective good, then it’s a constant conversation and negotiation. “Am I in the best position to do this? Are you? And if you are, then great. I’m happy to let you do it. I can help you if you need my help. “Thinking that way instead of being in competition as you put it.

Jenny:

Yeah, that’s so great because I’ve thought of often sometimes it is better to relinquish that leadership role if somebody else is more knowledgeable or better suited, like you said, in terms of relationships or whatever that looks like. And you’re right, it is a constant check-in question. And I love that you underscored the idea of collective good and how that helps us feel. It’s that feeling of reward that you just don’t get from those individual opportunities I think the same as you do when you accomplish something as a team.

Bill:

Leaning back into the years that I was in the United Church, we had a minister who regularly just kept looking for other sources. It wasn’t only the Bible. It was that plus, plus, plus. And one of the things that she tapped into was just the ground level taking care of each other. I believe that was a fantastic thing for me to experience, that the leader of our United Church would regularly challenge us to think a different way, to accept different things. This plurality is just a lovely richness that adds to what people ... And so I don’t believe that it’s the job of the spiritual leaders to tell people what they should believe. It’s the job of the spiritual leaders to invite them to think fully, to think wholly, to think in small ways completely away from the easy way. It’s easy to love your neighbour if it’s the same person as you, but we are surrounded in this world by other people and the word other should be a keynote that we got to communicate to the other people, not to the people who are in our basket, if you want to call it that.

I believe that real hospitality is another message that I’ve heard before. There’s mystics in the Middle Ages that basically welcome people as innkeeper, take that as a model.

A real good innkeeper invites everyone into their place, feeds them all, clothes them all, takes interest in where they came from and that’s the way I see us. I think we’re in keepers saying how diversity helps the RCWP group that I’m in also takes a look at First Nations wisdom and First Nations attitudes. We’ve gone way beyond the territorial acknowledgements to think about this being the world that we’re sharing with people who have been here for 20,000 years and we have screwed up pretty badly and we still have the choice to get together, listen to each other, benefit from each other, and not just exploit each other.

Jenny:

Oh, that’s wonderful stuff. I had the opportunity to interview Harley Besting, who was an elder of the Piikani Nation. And the way he spoke to me, I feel like our conversation resonated for months afterwards. It wasn’t as if he answered my questions. It was more about having me think about what he was saying and leaving me with some stories that would linger rather than telling me directly the things that I was missing. I love this concept of real hospitality and being in keepers for people and not potentially shaping, I think is what you’re saying, people’s thoughts, but rather just being open to how people come to the same or different ways of seeing a similar issue. And yeah, I just love the concept of accepting, thinking differently and forcing ourselves to think of another way rather than just the comfortable way that we generally like to think about our issues.

Love it.

Samaya:

Well, I was talking with a colleague of mine the other day and at the end of the day, I think ultimately our job is to help people make meaning out of their lives. Right now we are living at a time of such polarisation and a sense of othering. It makes me curious about how is it that we are creating a world, creating a province, creating a city, creating a society where every single person is honoured for who they are, for their inherent worth and dignity, for just existing for being who they are. And those are the people I’m really wanting to reach out to to say, yes, you matter, you matter in this world, you matter in what happens. We are bombarded with a lot of misinformation. How do we help people make meaning of that? How do we help them stay true to who they are, the integrity of who they are and participate in our public life, in our public discourse?

We do live in an interdependent web and when one part of the web is hurting, we are all at risk. The web becomes weakened when one part of it is not as strong as it could be. To me, it’s how do we strengthen the ties that bind us together as human beings? And there’s a lot of room in that for so many different worldviews, many different religions, many different ways of being in the world and it is beautiful and complex all at the same time. When I went to seminary, it was always your job as a faith leader is to afflict the comforted and comfort the afflicted. And we’re constantly living in that tension of challenging the status quo so that we can become better as a society, so that we can become better as human beings as well as providing that comfort for people who are really suffering from how society is minimizing their worth and their dignity.

And so that’s the struggle.

Jenny:

I think of as a parent trying to make sure that your kids are living up to their full potential, but also not pushing them too hard. That’s why I talk about having that balance between support and helping people develop their ... I love hearing being better human beings, making meaning in this world where we are experiencing so much polarization and othering of each other. Yeah, I think that’s really such a great place. And I wonder, there must be practice in this with respect to holding that space for people being able to be in that tension.

Samaya:

Here at Calgary Unitarians where I get the privilege of serving these people and we’re having so much fun together in a lot of different ways, it’s just a delight to serve them. My biggest message for them has been always, do you have a spiritual practice? And if you do not have a spiritual practice, get one. I don’t care what it looks like. It could be a mantra as you were brushing your teeth. It could be as you are out there walking your dog, whatever it is that works for you. And somebody said, “Well, why, Reverend, do I need to do this? I’m a humanist. What is this thing that you are talking about? “ And I went, my answer was what we’re doing is we’re developing a spiritual muscle so that when things happen in the world, we don’t either freeze and stop action or react and make the situation much worse.

When we have the capacity and have developed the spiritual discipline of really focusing in on who I am as a being in this world, when we have that, we then open up a third response. It gives us that breathing space. We learn the techniques to slow down what is happening and respond in a way that acknowledges the flourishment and the betterment of us all. That’s been my biggest message for Calgary Unitarians. It would be my biggest message for anybody is, do you have a spiritual practice? What is it? What does it look like? Because that gives you the spiritual and emotional muscle to respond differently when events in the world are driving us to be filled with anxiety, to be fearful. It opens us up to a new way, a third way, which is a beautiful way.

Jenny:

Beautiful. Yeah, I think of the instinctual versus reactive versus gives you that opportunity for the responsive mindset. And when you say a spiritual practise, I’m going to say in anticipation of this discussion, I’ve been reflecting on potentially my lack of spiritual practice and I used to have, this is going to sound silly, but I used to have a gym class that we used to call our religion. We used to say- Absolutely. And when I think of the potential underlying reason for that label might be just that regular accountability to each other and that sense of belonging and the sense of accomplishment together. Is that a good way to ...

Samaya:

Absolutely. And I also want to throw in another ... When I worked with youth, because I was always talking about spirituality, I was like, okay, a lot of my youth, they played soccer. I said,

“When you are on the soccer pitch and you’re in that zone where it’s just you and the ball and the game and there’s no room for anything else, that’s a spiritual moment. You are in the flow.”

When I was rock climbing, that’s a spiritual ... There’s no room for anything else other than me and the rock and it is like that. How do we develop those practices? And it could be the gym, it could be anything along those lines. That’s why I say I don’t care what it is. It could be walking your dog. Some people actually, that is part of their spiritual practice. They’re out walking their dog morning and night. That is a reset for them throughout their day to sort of, who am I in this moment? What have I got left to do? How do I want to be for the rest of my day? It pulls us into that capital S self of who we are. It connects us with that capital S self. Some people call it that, some people God, some people spirit, whatever your name is for it, it connects us with that and it helps us to feel like we belong to something greater than ourselves and that sense of belonging is something that we all hunger for because we’re not coming from place of fear or anxiety or anything along those lines.

We actually come from a place that is true to our hearts and an integrous place.

John:

And we’re living in a very challenging time. We came out of COVID not long ago and are in some ways still learning what do we learn both the positive and negative of that pandemic that affected all of us. And that was challenging for many people to then have the challenge of the United States and what’s gone on in our relationship with the United States and its place in the world. That’s a challenge economically and emotionally, I would say. What is the role? I mean, I think we need to be an oasis in a world of conflict and division. That doesn’t mean we stick our heads in the stands. It actually means that we encourage people to know they’re not alone

In this challenging time. I think we need to encourage people to understand that in Christianity, the Jesus that is presented in the gospel is one that’s about peace and inclusion and welcoming of the other. Jesus clearly takes the 613 commandments of the Hebrew Bible down into the trend that become the 10 commandments into the sermon on the mount, which is the attitudes that call about the blessedness of those who more and blessed or the peacemakers, blessed are the meek, et cetera. The philosophy and essence of Jesus gets set up when he gets asked, “What’s the greatest commandment?” And he just clearly says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.” And I underline the word neighbour as yourself because a lot of what is being preached is division and hate and judgement and clearly those are all things Jesus was again.

It’s a challenge for leaders, but they have to also say to themselves and look themselves in the mirror, which Jesus am I preaching the one that reflects the ideas I have or the ones that reflect Jesus’ vision for the world. It’s a challenging time, but I’ve been doing this 38 years, it’s never mattered more. I’ll say that again…

I’ve been doing this 38 years and it’s never mattered more because we are called to be speaking up and out so that passion is lived in the world.

I think the world yearns for good Christian religion to be spoken and preached and taught and it’s up to us to ensure that we are having people familiar with the Bible, not just saying, “Oh, that’s what it says without actually reading it or speaking to it. “ It’s calling us up and out. Interestingly enough, the word blessed is not a passive word. It means get up, get up and speak out is not just a political thing. It is a compassionate way to encourage people to embrace the world and all of its diversity, which frankly is a gift.

Jenny:

Wow, thank you so much calling us up and out. I’m assuming up from our our seats, let’s say, up from just potentially being…

John:

You know what, COVID kept people indoors and there’s lots still indoors. I think we have to get off our couches and say this matters. My biggest concern right now as I think about the separatist movement in our province is that people are saying, “Oh, it’s just going to go away or it’s not important or we don’t believe in that. “ Well, I think we have to get up and out and say, “Yes, we love our country. We’re part of this country and let people know that have a very small, narrow, non-historical view of the Confederation to speak up and out about this. “ This is really important that we engage with others, not to beat them up, but to help understand and educate each other about the gift of this country and our place, in it,

Jenny:

Incredible. And I could not agree with you more. We absolutely need to take this separatist movement seriously. You spoke earlier about what’s happening in the United States and I will say the clear coordination between the United States and the separatist movement, it is not something to be taken lately. As you said, I loved that you underscored 38 years. There’s never been a more important time. I could not agree more. I’ve been living my adult life since 2000 and really feeling like it’s now or never to uphold the things that we want to see for Canada and for our communities. Last question for you. Okay. Last question for you, Leslie is, and this is about, again, appreciating that faith leaders or spiritual leaders have a very important role to play in terms of helping the social and environmental justice movement more broadly.

How do you or your organization, how do you ensure that you are supporting those efforts or getting involved in those efforts, let’s say?

Jenny (00:55:49):

Thank you.

Leslie:

I think the faith leaders stay in touch just by virtue of their own networks. Many of our faith leaders of all different kinds are connected to groups that are thinking about and acting in social justice kinds of ways. Our faith leaders are already connected to those people. They make those opportunities known to us. If there’s a campaign, a letter writing campaign, we write a letter. We write a letter as a group. The Lethbridge Inclusive Catholic Community Fellowship has already done that with regard, we’ve written a letter to our government representatives expressing some of our concerns about proposed recent legislation. We can do that. We can attend if we know that there’s a rally and a protest, a gathering that’s in support of things that we believe in. We can go to those. I mean, I think it’s important generally that we’re not just armchair cheer.

I think we have to be out there. We have to be doing something. We have to have action and those faith leaders because of the people they know and the networks they move in and the congregants too. I mean, all of us have our own networks and our own ... We watch podcasts, we find out about things and so we can each act in our own little community as well as participate in the big ones.

Jenny:

Wonderful. Yeah. This letter is a perfect example of an action that you guys took together collectively. That’s really great to hear that you’ve written letters with respect to policy and things like that and that yes, I think it is just a matter of connecting and having those relationships and listening when your members or others from the public could bring something forward and assessing whether you support it and put boots on the ground. As you say, it’s just so important for people to see these places being represented and understand that it is a place that we can go to when we are concerned about something deeply.

Samaya:

You can check out our website, CalgaryUnitarians.ca. You can also reach out to me as the minister, minister@calgaryunitarians.ca. I won’t give you my phone number, but email will work just fine. I’m pretty responsive. We will be at the rally on May the 29th. We’re going to be there with Calgary Alliance for the Common Good because we’re a founding member of CACG. And please come out and come to the rally, come find us. We’ll be there with our Calgary Unitarians banner and email me. I would love to hear from people.

Jenny:

Wonderful.

John:

I think we have to encourage people that it matters if they show up. I think that’s the one sort of all I would say for all people if they’re able to be there and to lend their voice and support to say these things matter. I am working within the United Church of Canada to say that we are the United Church for Canada, not just of Canada. The United Church people will be hopefully present to let that be known.

It’s a matter of engagement. Politics is got such a bad reputation, but it used to be something of service for the common good. The word politics means polish, which is the affairs of the city. So everything’s political. The coffee drink, the car you drive, the lawn fertiliser, everything is political. So let’s not say it’s a bad thing and keep it separate. Let’s say what is this call Helping us too. And so my hope is that we encourage people to see a bigger picture and a more loving and compassionate feel themselves and their place in the world. So it’s got to be done with love and joy and not hate and fear.

Jenny:

Love that.

Bill:

I believe that we start out with understanding that there’s two really strong motivations in human life. One of them being love and the other one being fear. I believe that if we get down to the roots of love, then we are going to try to embrace other people. We’re going to try to get out of our comfort zone because we know that we’re being invited to do that as opposed to an atmosphere of fear where you say, “Well, I kind of understand this group’s point of view, but I really don’t understand these other guys because they’re really out there.” By starting out with what we have in common and working together on what we know is our root values, we’re going to get on the right track. And I guess we just have to keep telling ourselves we aren’t in search of the answer that we’re going to publish to everybody else.

We’re actually walking down the same road with a lot of different people. We’re looking for guidance and we get guidance. Yeah, we get guidance divinely. I meditate. I’m very quiet and I know that that helps my prayer life, if you want to call it my prayer life. We keep walking the good road. This is another message that comes from the First Nations version of the New Testament, which is another source. It’s reading the same Bible except it’s reading it through the eyes of the people who have been here for all these years on Turtle Island. And it’s lovely. It’s lovely to think about it in an open way and then you get down to the message first and then you backtrack to, okay, this is how it applies. The other thing that is really key to me after having seen Buddhism in Thailand and seeing Islam in Turkey, let’s get past what we’re different about and let’s take a look at what we do for each other.

What is it that our group does to help people who are disadvantaged? How do we equalize a very unequal world? And you know what? It’s not an enormous task that we can’t do. It’s something that we can make choices in our little zone and just watch the ripples go out from there.

Jenny:

Coming in with that expectation of how do we equalize a very unequal world is a really powerful place to come from. And understanding that it’s our care for each other that ultimately is how we should be measured.

Bill:

Two messages that mean a lot to me right now. And one of them is connection. I want to see connections between me and my grandson and me and the wacko guy who lives down the block from me because I can choose to build those connections. I don’t have to ignore them. I don’t have to say it’s too tough for me to do. The other message that I’ve kind of gathered in this journey lately is the idea that there is plenty for us. We have enough of a world we can make this world work without saying there’s going to be winners and losers because there is enough. Enough is one of the key words that I try to start with every day. I actually got it tattooed to my arm that I won’t show you, but yeah. That’s

Jenny:

Incredible. I love it because yes, this idea of scarcity and that we’re somehow in competition for everything when there is enough is such a beautiful message to leave with. Thank you, Bill. This has been wonderful. I’m so glad we had a chance to connect and I hope we have an opportunity again in the future.

Bill:

It’s been a pleasure. Thanks for asking.

Jenny:

You talked about our interconnectedness. The way I was describing it offline was these pillars of society and just understanding that faith, that spirituality is a pillar of a healthy society and for us to be making sure we look to leaders in this space and understanding that there are really meaningful ways to move us forward if we slow down and just think about how we can include each other’s perspectives.

Samaya:

Have a spiritual practice.

Jenny:

Yes. I heard that too. Thank you so much.

Leslie:

Thank you, Jenny.

Jenny:

Thank you so much, Leslie. I am so appreciative of your time. Lethbridge, I find has a very strong and healthy faith community, let’s say. It’s really nice to have an opportunity to speak to you and to hear more about what you’re doing.

Leslie:

Thank you so much, Jenny. I really appreciate the opportunity. All the best to you.

Bonus questions: what do you suggest people do to help regain a sense of community?

Jenny (01:05:30):

I’m going to ask one extra practical question of you just because you raised it earlier. A common concern I have, and I know others do too, is around, like you said, our neighbours, us being divided. I’ll be specific. My neighbour had flags out of many kinds that were hateful. We’ve lost relationship with them. Or what do you suggest people do to help regain a sense of community?

John:

Well, what I say to my community is this, you begin with the phrase, “Help me understand.” The phrase, your neighbours, help me understand why you want these particular flags up. Help me understand what’s driving this. It is an engagement to have people articulate why they’re feeling the way they are. That’s step number one, I think. The second is you’re going to have a flag that you can fly too. It begins with conversation. It will probably end with disagreement, but hopefully it’s done respectfully. And I know that. I mean, I flew a Canadian flag in my house last year. I’m going to get it out again. It never happened in my lifetime.

Jenny:

Right, me too.

John:

The tragedy in this is I’ve never had to defend why I live in Canada to other Canadians. Easy.

Jenny:

Absolutely.

John:

If you want to know who really gets this, talk to an Uber driver. They’ll tell you what’s like to live in a place that is not safe where governments have influenced in a negative way. It’s really asking people to pay attention and I encourage people to do that.

Jenny:

Wonderful.

John:

Thanks so much.

Jenny:

Yeah. Thank you. Take care for now.

Gil describes the AFL as Alberta’s oldest and largest worker advocacy group, an association of 27 unions representing about 175,000 workers in public and private sectors, founded 114 years ago in Lethbridge by coal miners and tradespeople to fight for the eight‑hour day, health and safety, and minimum wage. He shares his background as a rural Alberta farm kid turned journalist who became active in his union and eventually AFL president.

Gil explains that unions in the AFL decided in December to create a province‑wide day of protest on May 29 because they and many Albertans felt “things were going off the rails” under Premier Danielle Smith’s government. The immediate trigger was Bill 2, which forced striking teachers back to work and stripped their constitutional right to strike, but they quickly saw broader concerns: workers’ rights, two‑tier healthcare, attacks on education, cuts to supports for disabled people, and targeting of Indigenous communities and vulnerable LGBTQ+ kids. He characterizes the government’s approach as “MAGA North” tactics of divide, distract, and scapegoating, and says many Albertans are “quietly horrified” by this direction. Traditional democratic tools like petitions and letters are being ignored, he argues, while the government uses a “flood the zone” strategy—constant policy attacks and chaos—so he believes a unifying protest movement is needed to bring together people with many different concerns.

Warm up your protest voice by singing to the “Injustice” Minister, Mickey Amery, at his office (920 36 Street NE) from 12:00 to 1:30 pm. Here is the chorus, feel free to bring a verse or two!

RSVP Here!

May 29 is deliberately on a Friday to move from symbolic weekend demonstrations at an empty legislature to at least some level of disruption while MLAs are actually at work. Instead of a single rally in Edmonton, they chose a decentralized, grassroots model: protests “everywhere,” with local committees in 14 communities, including Edmonton, Calgary, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and smaller towns. They launched the Fight Back Now campaign and website (fightbacknow.ca) as the organizing hub for May 29 and potential future protest days, inviting both labour and non‑labour civil society to lead and participate. Gil notes that in Calgary, for example, there will be a large rally at Riley Park at 5:30 p.m. and a smaller protest at Justice Minister Mickey Amery’s constituency office at noon, targeting the “injustice minister” for enabling a separatist agenda.

Then ride your bike down to Riley Park!

Event schedule:

• Gather in the NW corner of Riley Park (8 Ave and 12 Street NW)

• Celebrate with dance music

• Optional: Bring your bike and join the Critical Mass ride at 6:30 pm

• Meet many groups working on diverse causes

• Hear from expert speakers

• Take part in the solidarity song writing contest! Perhaps we’ll have a full Mickey song to share.

RSVP Here!

Gil and I argue that the UCP’s current agenda lacks a democratic mandate: the 2023 election was close—decided by roughly 3,000–6,000 votes in a handful of Calgary ridings—and the party did not campaign on two‑tier healthcare, exiting the Canada Pension Plan, or separatism. We highlight that the government’s first major bill was the Sovereignty Act, which was not part of the campaign platform. Gil calls the government “founded on dishonesty” and says many UCP voters now feel betrayed because “this is not what I voted for,” and the May 29 protests are also a platform for those disillusioned supporters.

We delve into the ideological roots of the current agenda, focusing on the “Free Alberta Strategy,” co‑authored by Rob Anderson, Danielle Smith’s campaign manager and current chief of staff, which Gil likens to a Canadian version of the U.S. Project 2025. He says the document lays out a blueprint and timeline for moving Alberta toward MAGA‑style politics and separatism, and that Smith has been following it “component by component,” starting with the Sovereignty Act. Polls show separatism is supported by only 25–35% of Albertans overall, but it is a majority view within the UCP and is especially popular among higher‑income earners (over $150,000) who feel economically insecure. Gil and I connect this to oil and gas interests, noting that many leading separatist and UCP figures come from the sector, and that wealthy investors with heavy stakes in fossil fuels oppose anything that might limit expansion, such as climate policy or energy transition.

Gil frames this as part of a global “incumbent’s dilemma”: oil and gas, historically the most powerful industry in the world, now faces serious competition from increasingly cheap renewable electricity. Instead of pivoting and investing to remain competitive, he argues, many incumbents are “stacking the deck” through politics—lobbying, capturing governments, and seeking subsidies—while criticizing renewables for subsidies even as major oil projects now rely on public support. He sees the rise of separatism and MAGA‑style politics in Alberta as a desperate attempt by fossil fuel incumbents to protect their status by rigging the system rather than preparing for a different future, and warns that this is against the long‑term public interest, including that of oil and gas workers.

I stress the need for responsibility beyond Alberta’s borders, especially regarding water that flows to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, arguing that separatist rhetoric shrinks responsibility to “imaginary borders” and ignores interprovincial obligations. The oil and gas industry, with the largest footprint on the landscape, must lead in land and water restoration. I want to return to the industry to focus on stewardship. I also note that subsidies like the Site Rehabilitation Program are preferable to subsidizing new pipelines with questionable markets, and uses this to illustrate how public funds could support reclamation rather than expansion.

The organizing model for May 29 draws inspiration from the U.S. “No Kings” movement, which mobilizes mass protests in defense of democracy against Trump‑era authoritarianism. Gil says they deliberately adopted a similar grassroots, self‑organizing structure: the Fight Back Now website serves as a hub where local committees form, meet online, and then organize real‑world actions, with many committees now meeting independently. The goals mirror No Kings: show people you are not alone, counter the exhaustion caused by “flood the zone” tactics, and create a single space where multiple issues—healthcare, education, worker rights, separatism, minority rights—can converge into a unified movement against authoritarianism.

Gil situates this within a broader historical context, citing movements like Poland’s Solidarity and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution as examples of successful citizen coalitions that united diverse groups against authoritarian regimes. He emphasizes that May 29 is intended as the beginning, not a one‑off event: the AFL recently helped convene an Alberta Civil Society Summit with about 200 participants from unions, Indigenous groups, student organizations, seniors, and racialized and immigrant communities, and they plan more protests and another summit in the fall to deepen cross‑sector networks.

I underscores the importance of “organizing for power” and praises the labour movement’s experience in structured organizing: having hard conversations, clarifying expectations, and building long‑term solidarity rather than one‑time actions. I note that AFL’s role is to seed and support, not control, the movement; in Calgary, for instance, the May 29 committee has more non‑union than union members and is chaired by community activists, which Gil welcomes as evidence of genuine grassroots growth. Gil recounts that the premier’s office mocked him and predicted failure when Fight Back Now was announced, pointing to past efforts like general strike threats and recall campaigns, but he argues that thousands of Albertans were mobilized through those recalls despite artificially high thresholds, and that these experiences built a base of activists now moving into “phase two.”

Gil and I frame the UCP’s rule‑changing as a hallmark of creeping authoritarianism: lowering thresholds for separatist initiatives while imposing high hurdles on citizen‑driven recall and initiative campaigns, and changing laws to shield the government from court decisions. We argue that Alberta’s political stereotype—conservative, pickup‑driving, oil‑patch “Joe Alberta”—obscures a much more diverse population, and that the UCP’s MAGA‑style project is “awakening a sleeping giant” of citizens who want to remain in Canada, protect public services, and reject authoritarianism. Gil insists that these citizens are likely the majority and that their real power lies in collective action, which the May 29 protests aim to facilitate.

In the final part of the conversation, I ask Gil to address accusations that the AFL is simply an arm of the NDP and to explain why a widely expected general strike did not occur after Bill 2. Gil responds that while many union activists vote NDP, the AFL and NDP are functionally separate: only 2 of 27 affiliated unions are formally connected to the NDP, and most unions are officially or functionally non‑partisan, with members repeatedly telling the AFL not to dictate their votes. He argues that workers naturally gravitate away from a government that refuses to raise the minimum wage, attacks public services, and strips the right to strike, and that his job is to defend workers’ interests, which currently means opposing the UCP. He also notes tensions with the NDP: the AFL has developed its own “Worker Agenda,” a detailed policy blueprint on affordability, wages, public services, jobs, and the economy, including proposals like a $20 minimum wage, public auto insurance to lower Canada’s highest auto premiums, and re‑regulating Alberta’s fully deregulated power system, which he says was effectively designed by former Enron figures. He wants the NDP to adopt more “progressive populist” policies—“more like Bernie than Hillary”—but stresses that the AFL’s platform is independent.

On Bill 2 and the missed general strike, Gil gives a candid account: anticipating use of the notwithstanding clause against striking workers, the AFL created a “Common Front” of AFL and non‑AFL unions and a “Solidarity Pact” pledging mutual defence if any group’s right to strike was attacked. When the government used the clause against teachers in October, ordering them back to work with threats of $500‑per‑day fines for individuals and massive fines for the union, the teachers’ leadership decided not to defy the order, partly because they had already been on strike for three weeks and lacked a strike fund. At a critical October 29 meeting, some major union leaders argued they could not ask their members to undertake illegal strikes and face similar fines if the teachers themselves were not defying the order, and “the air went out of the balloon.” Gil and AFL vice‑president Corey Longo did move a motion for a one‑day general strike and many unions were ready, but without teacher defiance the plan collapsed. Gil says he will not blame teachers, but believes the labour movement “missed an opportunity,” let Albertans down, and emboldened the government to escalate; organizing the May 29 Day of Action and future protests is, in his view, part of atoning for that failure.

The episode closes with my reiterating that separatism, though a symptom rather than the root cause, is serious and well‑funded, and that the May 29 protests are a chance for people to stand together on whatever issue matters most to them—separatism, healthcare, education, worker rights, or democratic norms.

Thank you, Gil, for your leadership! Failure and learning are part of the process of building a long‑term solidarity movement.

RSVP Across Alberta Here!

On gerrymandering, Bratt notes there are no major updates: an MLA committee has been named, but its advisory body and final maps are still pending. He expects the final outcome will differ from both the majority and minority reports and involve significant redrawing of boundaries, not just adding two seats. He contrasts Alberta’s long timeline (next election likely October 2027) with the United States, where maps are being redrawn even as they approach a November 2026 vote.

The main focus is a large-scale data breach: Elections Alberta’s voters list for 2.9 million people was legitimately provided to the new Republican Party of Alberta, which had not run in the 2023 general election but had only contested three by-elections. That list was then transferred—possibly sold or given—to the Centurion Project, a pro-separatist organization that is not a political party. Elections Alberta detected the leak because they “salt” each party’s list with fake names; those fake names appeared on the Centurion list, tracing the breach back to the Alberta Republican Party.

Bratt explains why this is far more serious than a “phone book,” contrary to Centurion leader David Parker’s claim. The voters list includes polling station information and other data never in phone books, and unlike phone books, individuals cannot opt out; people who would normally hide their information (judges, police, some teachers, people fearing harassment or doxxing) are exposed. He calls it a huge breach of privacy and security.

He outlines potential harms: doxxing of public figures (Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney’s personal data have already been released), risks to victims of domestic abuse and child custody disputes, resale of data to companies, and use as a baseline for identity theft (names, addresses, emails, phone numbers). Politically, the Centurion Project held the list for at least a month while gathering signatures for a petition to trigger an Alberta separation referendum in October 2026; Bratt raises the possibility that some petition entries could have been filled using voters-list data without consent, especially since only signatures would need to be added.

Multiple investigations are underway: Elections Alberta, the Alberta Privacy Commissioner, the RCMP, and Edmonton Police Service are all investigating. Elections Alberta has issued cease-and-desist letters to at least 600 Centurion affiliates who had access to the full list, though the true spread is unknown due to the group’s multi-level-marketing-style recruitment (each person recruiting ten more, and so on). Bratt stresses this is a massive breach with political, civil, and criminal consequences, some of which may only emerge over time.

On legal exposure, Bratt notes that distributing the list can carry fines up to $100,000 and up to a year in jail, though he doubts every volunteer will face such penalties. He suggests key figures like David Parker and Republican Party leader Cam Davies could be in serious legal jeopardy, and notes that separatist leader Jeff Rath had previously directed people to Centurion before later distancing himself. Note: Parker is not complying with the Elections Alberta investigation at the moment.

Bratt then details links between the United Conservative Party (UCP) and separatist actors: Mitch Sylvester, leader of the Alberta Prosperity Project, is also a UCP constituency association president; UCP MLA Jason Stephan wrote an op-ed advocating separatism; and a UCP staffer attended a mid-April Centurion meeting where Jason Kenney’s personal information was released. The NDP reported the staffer’s presence to Elections Alberta and the RCMP, yet Premier Danielle Smith has blamed the NDP for not informing her, even though her own staffer was at the meeting, which Bratt calls “bonkers.” He questions why a premier’s staffer was at a private, invite-only separatist organizing meeting and what report he provided afterward.

Bratt and about 40 Alberta academics (political scientists, law professors, criminologists) are calling for a broad public inquiry, arguing that existing investigations are too narrow and focused on legalities rather than ethics and systemic issues. They want an independent, well-resourced, and fast-moving inquiry, given the planned 2026 referendum, to examine questions such as whether parties should receive voters lists at all and whether all parties should be treated equally, especially brand-new or fringe parties. Bratt cites Calgary’s 2021 municipal election, where Elections Calgary withheld the voters list from all mayoral candidates because one candidate, Kevin J. Johnston, was a known doxxer facing criminal charges; the election proceeded smoothly, suggesting parties may not need such lists.

TAKE ACTION! Join the 40 Alberta Academics in Calling for a Broad Public Inquiry

To: generalinfo@oipc.ab.ca

Subject: Request for a Public Inquiry Outside of the Government of Alberta’s Reach

To Whom It May Concern,

The RCMP and Elections Alberta investigations regarding the doxxing of 2.9 million Albertans, including myself, are insufficient and are likely to not be complied with. This breach cannot be considered limited to Alberta as separatism aims extends to British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The scope of a nation wide investigation must include:

Such an inquiry must be:

• Independent, with leadership free from political influence;

• Transparent, with proceedings open to public scrutiny;

• Comprehensive, with the authority to compel testimony and documents;

• Forward-looking, offering clear recommendations to prevent future breaches and strengthen safeguards; and

• Ideally completed before Albertans cast ballots in any future election or referendum.

Considering the investigations undertaken by the current Government of Alberta (example: the Alberta Health Services procurement scandal) have been scope-limited and conducted by individuals with connections to the United Conservative Party of Alberta, it is imperative an investigation occurs from outside the province or outside the GOA’s control.

Please take this threat seriously, as the future of our country is on the line.

Sincerely,

Jenny Yeremiy, Calgary-Bow

Include your postal code

The conversation broadens to foreign interference and separatist propaganda. Bratt notes that David Parker has said he obtained the organizing technology from U.S. Republicans, indicating foreign tactical influence, while the underlying data in this case came from Alberta’s voters list. He points to evidence of separatist-related disinformation originating from Russia, the Netherlands, and Florida, and warns that foreign actors may now have access to the leaked list. Some foreign actors, he says, want to break up Canada (Trump has talked about annexing Canada), others like China seek to sow chaos in democracies, and some simply want to profit by producing AI videos and other content.

They discuss AI-generated propaganda such as the “Sovereign Steel” video, played at Alberta Prosperity Project rallies, which portrays stereotypical rural male roles, marginalizes women (only shown as wife, daughter, and Danielle Smith), and caricatures Mark Carney as a mocking monarch. The creator, “Full Metal Patriot,” is an American who has produced similar content for the U.S. and U.K., illustrating foreign involvement. Bratt notes that while some videos are crude “slopaganda,” they still amplify existing divisions on issues like equalization, immigration, oil and gas, transgender rights, and COVID, by exaggerating kernels of truth.

Bratt references Canada’s recent public inquiry into foreign interference in the 2021 federal election, which found that foreign actors focused on nomination races and misinformation in non-English/French media, potentially affecting a handful of seats even if not the overall result. He argues foreign actors (China, Russia, and now the U.S. element) have reasons to target Alberta as well. He contrasts UCP claims—via Mike Ellis and Danielle Smith—that the RCMP found no foreign interference in the Alberta referendum with CSIS’s director, who told CBC’s The House that foreign interference is occurring; Bratt concludes that foreign interference, broadly defined (misinformation, money flows, attempts to influence outcomes), is already underway even before any vote.

Politically, Bratt notes that Mark Carney has commented on the breach, while Pierre Poilievre and all Alberta Conservative MPs have remained silent, unlike non-Conservative MPs who have spoken out. He criticizes separatists’ “situational ethics”: they oppose government data collection (e.g., gun registry, census) yet downplay the release of data on nearly three million people when it serves separatist goals.

Within the separatist movement, the breach has triggered infighting. Longtime separatist Corey Morgan has condemned the privacy violation and warned it harms the cause; Mitch Sylvester and Jeff Rath are distancing themselves from David Parker, while Morgan and Rath feud publicly. Duane and I also discuss the Overton window and how repeated exposure to propaganda normalizes extreme ideas.

They touch on definitional issues: RCMP and CSIS reportedly do not classify overt statements by foreign politicians (e.g., J.D. Vance campaigning with Viktor Orbán, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent endorsing Alberta separatism, or a potential Trump endorsement) as foreign interference, focusing instead on covert actions. Bratt notes that U.S. commentators like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck have publicly called for military intervention in Canada to remove what they describe as an undemocratic government; while not necessarily criminal, he argues these are deeply unethical interventions, especially given Carlson’s speaking tour in Alberta that included Premier Smith.

Throughout, Bratt emphasizes that not all harmful or unethical behaviour is criminal, and that a public inquiry is needed to address broader ethical, democratic, and systemic questions beyond the scope of police or privacy investigations.

Want More?

Have a listen to my latest conversation with in Edmonton last week!

TAKE ACTION: Participate in the Friday, May 29th FIGHT BACK NOW Day-of-Action!

Following the lead of historical social justice movements, the Alberta Federation of Labour is planning a workers day-of-action in Alberta. With the No Kings movement in the United States, coupled with the knowledge that former workers’ success has come through system disruption, Alberta is beginning her very own “No Queens” movement on Friday, May 29th. Have your voice heard, make your displeasure known. Have a listen to Gil McGowan and Nate Pike’s great conversation about the event on .

Sign Up to Find Your Local Rally

Until next time, Comrade Wesam, in solidarity! Find Wesam on Facebook and Instagram under @CalgaryPeoplesAssembly.

The energy discussion I mentioned:

Your help is needed. 🙏 🤝

1) It seems clear that the "tool" the Centurion Project (the current name of the separatist movement) is using to "soldier" up is simply stolen data. You and your family's data from Alberta to Gaza is being shared with the United States for nefarious means.
2) To justify oil and gas demand, data centers that demand obscene amounts of freshwater are being proposed everywhere while the cheapest and cleanest barrels are being destroyed for dirty and distant American made fossil fuel products.
3) It seems our data will be used to target and erase us at will, as we're witnessing in real-time across the Middle East (Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon). No long-standing, untold story to deny a genocide in Lebanon.
4) The world is two weeks away from feeling the impacts of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz beginning on February 28, 2026. The best barrels and LNG have been taken off line. While the purchasers of our AI data center plans have zero income (think United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia).
5) Diesel and jet fuel supply are set to fall across Europe while the US is actively destroying cheap, clean Russian, Indian, and now Middle Eastern oil and gas supply since 2022. And, the US is depleting its own reserves and set to rely on Alberta and Venezuela to double the load in short order.

6) Again, for AI data centers to surveil you and further depletion of your food and water supply.
7) There is no end in sight as Trump and the thugs who surround him will not admit defeat, unless you join Mikayla and me in asking them to retreat.

Alberta does not need to look far for examples of where we are headed if we don't stop the doubling production lie; the City of Corpus Christi is headed for zero freshwater soon if the big six get their way.

The bigger issues we all face now is feeding ourselves as #PresidentDJT dismantles the world food & trade system.

Take Action:

1. Call for the Edmonton Chief of Police to be removed from his role with this Change.org petition:

Demand Warren Dreichel’s Removal from The Edmonton Police Service

While our city continues to mourn the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza, Police Chief Warren Driechel travelled to Israel to meet with the police force notorious for its human rights violations, with the Police Commission’s blessing. While the trip has been framed as an “educational” expedition, for Edmontonians this trip was a betrayal. Mayor, Andrew Knack rightly noted that this trip has damaged the social fabric of our city. Yet, in the face of this outcry, Chief Driechel has remained defiant, stating he “stands by his decision.”

Sign Here!

We, the signatories, demand:

• The immediate resignation of Police Chief Warren Driechel, on the grounds that his actions have undermined public trust and jeopardized community cohesion.

• An independent, transparent, and comprehensive investigation into the purpose, funding, itinerary, meetings, and outcomes of Police Chief Driechel’s travel to Occupied Palestine including full disclosure of any official or unofficial engagements undertaken during the visit.

• The immediate suspension and subsequent termination of any current or future institutional partnerships, training programs, exchanges, or collaborations between the Edmonton Police Service and zionist policing or security agencies, in accordance with municipal, commitments to human rights, international law, and ethical governance.

We know that human rights should never be taken for granted. We know that what Warren Dreichel did was wrong, and he must face the consequences of his actions.

2. Call for a Federal Investigation into Foreign Interference within the Separatist Movement

2. e-7340—Petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled

Whereas:

• The Alberta Prosperity Project, driving the current independence petition, has held three documented meetings with senior Trump administration officials and solicited a $500 billion US credit facility to fund a potential independent Alberta;

• The Trump administration’s documented pattern of resource-driven coercion — in Venezuela, Greenland, and Panama — is now credibly directed at Alberta, which holds the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves;

• Co-founder Dennis Modry, participant in the Washington meetings, was found by a BC Supreme Court judge to have misappropriated $1.3 million from elderly relatives;

• Canada’s Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner has confirmed foreign interference in Canadian political processes is already occurring and that the Washington meetings may fall within his mandate; and

• The Alberta government legislated around a court ruling declaring the original petition unconstitutional — conduct the presiding judge described as “disrespectful to the administration of justice.”

We, the undersigned, People of Canada, call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to invoke its authority under Section 53 of the Supreme Court Act to refer the constitutionality of Alberta’s Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 to the Supreme Court of Canada, and to direct the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner to immediately investigate the meetings between the Alberta Prosperity Project and the Trump administration.

Sign this Petition

If you wish to sign this petition, please provide the required information in the fields below. Your personal information will not be made public.

Sign Petition e-7340!

#NWTpoli #bcpoli #abpoli #skpoli #mbpoli #Maritimes, #AtlanticCanada, #EastCoast #cdnpoli #canada #onpoli #ontario #toronto #alberta #abpoli #trudeaumustgo #politics #trudeau #bcpoli #ottawa #freedomconvoy #ableg #justintrudeau #calgary #conservative #canadianpolitics #skpoli #cpc #ndp #cdnpolitics #elxn #canadian #liberals #vancouver #canadavotes #covid #quebec #andrewscheer

1. The Alberta Prosperity Project to the Centurion Project hand off.

2. The latest meeting where David Parker described the “technology” being used, aka voter lists.

3. The soldiering up and educating of separatist leaders to bring in followers using an app.

4. Alberta’s relationships between the United States, Israel, Gaza, and the war in Iran.

5. TAKE ACTION: Demand Warren Dreichel’s Removal from The Edmonton Police Service

   While our city continues to mourn the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza, Police Chief Warren Driechel travelled to Israel to meet with the police force notorious for its human rights violations, with the Police Commission's blessing. While the trip has been framed as an "educational" expedition, for Edmontonians this trip was a betrayal. Mayor, Andrew Knack rightly noted that this trip has damaged the social fabric of our city. Yet, in the face of this outcry, Chief Driechel has remained defiant, stating he "stands by his decision."

   

   Sign Here!

   We, the signatories, demand:

   • The immediate resignation of Police Chief Warren Driechel, on the grounds that his actions have undermined public trust and jeopardized community cohesion.

   • An independent, transparent, and comprehensive investigation into the purpose, funding, itinerary, meetings, and outcomes of Police Chief Driechel’s travel to Occupied Palestine including full disclosure of any official or unofficial engagements undertaken during the visit.

   • The immediate suspension and subsequent termination of any current or future institutional partnerships, training programs, exchanges, or collaborations between the Edmonton Police Service and zionist policing or security agencies, in accordance with municipal, commitments to human rights, international law, and ethical governance.

   We know that human rights should never be taken for granted. We know that what Warren Dreichel did was wrong, and he must face the consequences of his actions.

Resources

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s Statements on Coal Demand

Coal Demand | Alberta Energy Regulator

Battery Circularity and Canada’s Need to Catch Up

Coal Price Volatility, Outlook, Grassy Coal Quality, Rock Waste Piles

AUSTRALIA Resources and Energy Quarterly December 2025

Due to decreasing global coal demand, and an increasing focus on high quality coal, benchmark hard coking coal prices are trending to sub-$200 USD/tonne.

Trading Economics, on April 19, 2026

Benchmark metallurgical coal prices are trending to $185 USD/tonne.

Australia Resources and Energy Quarterly, September 2025

Graphs showing India and South East Asia have been making up for China’s—and others—declining coal imports (left) and Australia’s high quality coal dominates the export market (right).

SMS Group Insights March 2024, The Steel Industry in 2050

Tables highlighting a 71% to 33% blast furnace decrease expected (left) and increasing scrap steel availability from 0.9 to 1.5 Megatonnes per year (right) between 2022 and 2050.

Wood Mackenzie, Steel Value Briefing Tokyo, August 2024.

Remembering that good climate policy is good economic policy, scenarios adhering to climate policy may drop global oil demand by as much as 3/4 of current global metallurgical coal demand.

• Base Case consistent with 2.5^oC global warming, as per Wood Mac’s Long-term of 2024Q1. Steady advancement of current and nascent technologies.

• Pledges consistent with 2^oC global warming, aligned with Net Zero by 2070 pledges in COP26, in 2021. Incl. policy response to current energy crisis & geopolitical challenges to global economy.

• Net Zero 2050 scenario consistent by 1.5^oC global warming, net zero by 2050. Aligns with most ambitious goal of Paris Agreement in 2015.

Cornelis’s Expert Evidence Report on Grassy Mountain

Cornelis expects coal quality to decline rapidly from seam to seam at Grassy Mountain. Coupling this with demand decline, he sees reclamation dollars being unavailable when needed most.

A graph showing the quality of Grassy Mountain Coal being well below Prime Hard Coking Coal quality benchmarks CSR and the neighboring Elk Valley coal seams. As a consequence, Grassy's coal product will have lower market value and pricing compared to the Elk Valley's coal. CSR is the coke strength in the Blast Furnace's process conditions; Extreme Temperatures and aggressive gas-attack degrading the coke, potentially "smothering" the process.

The Fluidity, this is the softening, partly melting of coal during carbonization in the oven is lower than Elk Valley's Prime hard coking coal. Usually, an optimized blend of coking coals is charged into the coke oven and heated to approx. 1100oC. Upon softening and release of gas and tar, the coal solidifies into solid coke. Low Fluidity coals are not as effective interacting with the other coals in the coal blend to form the strong coke structure required in the Blast Furnace.

A graph showing the opening and closing of coal mines between 1996 and 2016. Overall mines were offline 1/3 of the time.

A table highlighting the overstated economic value and employment opportunities across three mines in British Columbia between 1999-2019.

Research on subsidence from underground operations in Alberta and Beyond

Significant movement and ground deformation at the location labelled P4 towards the road and Smoky River: Ground deformation due to natural resource extraction in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin - ScienceDirect.

Two maps showing the pits and waste rock (left) and proposed mine plans (right) for the Tent Mountain mine. There is evidence of sluffing of the stock piles due to the topography and increased material volume and load in this Google Earth satellite image.

Tent Mountain Google Earth Satellite Image Slumping Waste Rock Pile 1 Aug.2025-2

Underground mining is far from “out-of-sight-out-of-mind”. Apart from the impact on the watershed, methane is likely to escape through the cracks into the atmosphere, adding to the atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution. In some mining areas (Appalachians) in the USA escaping methane caused some homes and buildings to explode. In some cases, escaping mine-gas methane is being flared. The Crowsnest coal seams can be very “gaseous”, referring to underground mine explosions of the past.

Towards an Inventory of Abandoned Mines in Australia

Southern East Slope Geology Complexity and Thinning Compared to the Elk Valley

Two maps showing the surface expression increased complexity (left) and thinning of the coal seam thickness (right) from West (Elk Valley) to East (Crowsnest Valley).

The Joint Review Panel Report Decision, Page 19, finds the project is not in the public’s interest: https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/decisions/2021/2021ABAER010.pdf.

This Google Earth image roughly shows the original rejected mine footprint (red) and the newly proposed footprint (yellow). As you can see, very little has changed. The map also highlights the tributaries that flow into the Crowsnest River, including Gold Creek and Blairmore Creek, highlighting their direct connection to downstream water systems that will receive contaminants.