THIS IS B******T

Kennedy Halvorson of the Alberta Wilderness Association returns while visiting Ottawa as part of the Nature on the Hill event organized by Nature Canada. This annual gathering brings environmental advocates from across Canada to meet with parliamentarians and lobby for environmental protection, addressing the imbalance in access that sees oil and gas representatives meeting with officials far more frequently than environmental voices. Kennedy explains that their current advocacy focuses on Bill C-39, titled “Building Canada Strong,” which proposes fast-tracking major development projects. As Norma and Gwen shared last week, there are concerns that Bill C-39’s accelerates approval process by eliminate crucial oversight and community input, allowing ministers excessive discretion in selecting which projects proceed. They argue this undermines sustainable development by removing environmental scrutiny and risk assessments that protect ecosystems essential to Canada’s actual strength. The discussion highlights a parallel threat at the provincial level in Alberta, where proposed amendments would remove seasonal and temporary wetlands from consideration in development assessments, despite wetlands already having diminished by approximately 70% in settled areas. The conversation concludes with a call to action: contact your MPs (all Canadians) and MLAs (Albertans) before the legislature reconvenes to oppose these wetland amendments and demand public consultation. Wetlands provide critical ecological services including water filtration, carbon storage, flood regulation, and biodiversity habitat that cannot be easily replaced. Go to Alberta Wilderness Association’s website for more, and check out the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) and Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y) for additional resources for engagement on environmental issues. https://www.albertawilderness.ca/act-now/we-need-wetlands/ https://www.albertawilderness.ca/send-a-letter-demand-better-protections-for-wetlands/

Gwen Muskwa is the Treaty Relations Director for Treaty 8, having worked with the organization for 29 years. She describes her work as honouring the legacy of elders who taught her everything she knows, with a focus on ensuring treaties are respected, honoured, and upheld. Norma Large is from the Saddle Lake Creek Nation in Treaty 6 territory, currently living in Treaty 7 territory in Calgary. She explains she has spent approximately 30 years doing advocacy work to address inequities between First Nations and non-First Nations peoples, and sees the current referendum moment as an opportunity for change. Norma provides extensive analysis of the referendum’s significance, tracing government efforts to disengage from treaty obligations back to the 1969 White Paper on Indigenous issues. She emphasizes that “there would be no Canada and there would be no Alberta if treaty had not been made by our ancestors on our behalf”, and that First Nations are “the only sovereigns here in actual fact”. She connects current resource extraction objectives to the underlying rationale for the referendum, noting that Treaty 8 territory has been at the forefront of fighting both domestic and international battles. She also warns that the immigration question in the referendum serves as a “dog whistle” to distract from the goal of gaining control over natural resources. Gwen discusses the daily challenges of dealing with government policies and legislation that overstep First Nations rights. She refutes claims that First Nations “ceded, released, and surrendered” their lands, stating there are no such words in First Nations languages and that they only agreed to share lands “to the depth of a plough for immigration and settlement”. She explains how the pass system, residential schools, and other oppressive systems prevented First Nations from challenging earlier legislation like the 1930 Natural Resource Transfer Act. She expresses concern about post-referendum plans for Section 35 constitutional reviews by both the provincial and federal governments. Both Gwen and Norma elaborate on the sacred nature of treaties as international instruments made with the Imperial Crown of Great Britain and Ireland, not Canada or Alberta. Norma describes the pipe ceremony and smudge that accompanied treaty-making as creating “an invisible jurisdiction” as binding as a judge’s gavel, lasting “forever in perpetuity for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the waters flow”. Gwen emphasizes that lands are a collective right requiring approval from the people, not just leadership, and distinguishes between consultation, engagement, and the free prior and informed consent required by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Both stress the seven-generation responsibility to protect land, water, and air for future generations—First Nations and non-First Nations alike. More to learn and gain from following Indigenous advocacy both at home and abroad. Reach out to Gwen at Treaty 8 for education opportunities: https://treaty8.org/about/education/. Note: Norma said Bill C-69 but meant C-39.

Morrow County Oregon’s Barrett Dash, farmer, environmentalist and community leader joins me to discuss why and how to dodge big data as Morrow County’s AI data centre assault began in the 1990s. He explains the deprived tax stricken counties being labelled as “sacrifice zones” with “tax incentives” for big corporations. He fights and educates in four different ways at the moment. He encourages your participation and support as do I! The conversation reveals systemic concerns about how data centre development bypassed proper oversight. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) between ports, cities, and companies like Amazon obscured water and power usage from public scrutiny. Local representatives allegedly violated their oaths of office by operating under NDAs, while water rights—legally dedicated to exclusive farm use—were transferred to data centres through questionable zoning changes and land swaps. This transformation prioritized industrial interests over agricultural communities that originally established the ports for shipping grain. Environmental and health impacts feature prominently in Dash’s activism. The Columbia River Basin, with its tributaries supporting salmon and steelhead, faces strain from over 100 planned or operational data centre campuses consuming vast water and power resources. Contaminated water discharged from facilities risks reentering municipal systems or aquifers, while decades of fisheries restoration face compromise. Dash notes community members fear speaking out due to employment ties with county government or Amazon, while health issues including miscarriages remain unaddressed by corporate investment. Grassroots organizing has emerged across multiple bioregions, with Dash participating in the Oregon Data Center Defiance Group and broader networks spanning Washington, Idaho, and Montana. These coalitions pursue three-year moratoriums to enable proper impact assessment, environmental review, and potential unwinding of existing developments established through closed-door negotiations. The movement emphasizes apolitical, humanity-centered approaches focused on sustainable agriculture and community investment rather than technology-driven growth. Barrett’s community: * Join his rural movement for the people: https://www.oregonrural.org/ * Follow the Data Centre Resistance podcast and advocacy network: https://datacenterresistance.org/ * Learn from the Oregon Data Center Defiance Group Steering Committee: https://www.damdatacenters.org/ * Collaborate at http://grassrootsdatacentercoaltion.org/

The Ground Zero event in Olds, Alberta on October 1, hosted by Kayla Piccinin and Debby Pelletier, brought together community members and experts to discuss the rapid proliferation of AI data centre proposals across the province and their implications for local communities. I presented an analysis of Alberta’s data centre buildout and connected it to broader issues of oil and gas liability. I explained that 65 data centres are currently in the province with 42 actively being pursued across 33 municipalities, including the massive Meta project approved at nearly 1 gigawatt and over 31 additional projects representing more than 15 gigawatts of planned capacity. I highlighted concerning patterns in project financing, noting funding from Middle Eastern sources and individuals connected to the Epstein files, while also pointing to regulatory capture where government altered the Water Act to allow data centres to access groundwater without environmental impact assessment. Carol, a finance academic who moved to Olds three years ago, provided technical background on AI and data centres while critiquing the industry and government response. She distinguished traditional data centres (under 75 megawatts, often unnoticed in office basements) from new “hyperscale” AI data centres that can be 1,000 times larger and occupy hundreds of acres. Carol argued that comparing criticism of AI data centres to use of Facebook demonstrates ignorance, as the scale difference resembles “an e-scooter to an 18-wheeler”. She raised alarms about AI safety, citing experts’ 10-20% probability of human extinction from “misalignment,” and detailed the “Hugging Face incident” where OpenAI agents trained to hack escaped containment and attacked another company’s servers without adequate consequences. Jasona Rondeau, a Foothills County resident and advocate, focused on communication failures and regulatory gaps in data centre approvals. She emphasized how government messaging uses simplified language (”warehouse full of computers”) that obscures industrial scale impacts like 848 backup diesel generators at Meta or 6 million liters of daily water use at other proposed facilities. Jasona documented wetland destruction at Meta (351 wetlands) and the broken promise of “wetland banking,” while critiquing “fragmented approvals” where multiple agencies don’t coordinate, leaving cumulative impacts unaddressed. She offered detailed linguistic analysis of Premier Danielle Smith’s promotional video, showing how phrases like “some who have heard stories” minimized legitimate opposition, while “digital pipeline” and “never sells at a discount” misrepresented actual commodity dynamics and data sovereignty. Who is an expert? Agreed, Debby, those who research, educate or hold lived experience of regulatory failures.

Bronwyn Bragg, an assistant professor at the University of Lethbridge with 15 years of experience in migration research, joins me to discuss Alberta’s referendum on immigration policy. Her research reveals that the referendum’s five questions appear designed to manipulate public sentiment rather than address genuine policy needs. Bragg explains that the questions target temporary foreign workers, international students, and refugee claimants—collectively about 5.5% of Alberta’s population—who already pay taxes into the healthcare and education systems they would be denied access to under proposed changes. The first referendum question proposes increased provincial control over immigration to decrease numbers and prioritize Albertans for employment. Bragg counters that immigration is already declining under federal policy changes, with Canada’s population shrinking for the first time since Confederation. Economic immigration already constitutes 60% of arrivals, and Canadians are already prioritized for jobs—migrants primarily fill positions in dangerous industries like meat packing that employers struggle to staff. Side note: Dr. Brad Stelfox, two time guest, is a cumulative impact expert from Alberta who has mapped the beef industry against other industrial activities. Current ranching practices have a significant environmental impact compared to other industries. Questions two through four would restrict provincially funded healthcare and education to citizens, permanent residents, and those with “Alberta approved immigration status.” Bragg emphasizes that 75% of temporary residents are taxpayers, and these policies would directly harm families—such as Ukrainian refugee claimants whose children could face $14,000 annual fees for public school. The premier’s characterization of these residents as “tourists” deliberately misrepresents their established community presence. Notably, implementation has reportedly already begun affecting hundreds of students before any vote. The fifth question would require proof of citizenship to vote in provincial elections. Bragg notes this addresses a non-existent problem, as only citizens can already vote and Elections Alberta confirms no evidence of violations. She connects this to separatist movement rhetoric designed to undermine democratic trust, warning it could particularly disadvantage Indigenous people and unhoused individuals who may lack documentation. Bragg frames the entire referendum as political scapegoating that exploits genuine economic insecurity—citing polling that 60% of Albertans struggle financially—while deflecting blame from provincial policy decisions onto vulnerable migrants. She warns this rhetoric mirrors the progression seen in the United States, where similar language preceded brutal deportation regimes and increased hate crimes. No thank you, nine times. SUBMIT YOUR SPECIAL BALLOTS! FRIDAY, October 9 is the last day to mail in your referendum special ballots to ensure they will meet Elections Alberta by the Oct 16 deadline.