How Tokenization Could Reshape The World’s Financial Architecture – Analysis

July 3, 2026 
By Tobias Adrian

Key Takeaways

Beyond Efficiency: Structural Transformation — Tokenization moves beyond faster/cheaper transactions by embedding ownership, settlement, and rules directly into shared ledgers and smart contracts. This enables simultaneous (atomic) execution but removes traditional buffers, shifting risk to platforms/code and requiring new policy frameworks.

Evolving Roles for Money & Institutions — Multiple settlement assets (tokenized bank deposits, stablecoins, CBDC reserves) will compete, while banks adapt rather than disappear. Tokenization changes liquidity management, collateral use, and risk concentration, with potential for greater efficiency but also faster stress propagation.

Policy & Governance Challenges — Success depends on interoperability, legal clarity (ownership, finality), operational resilience, code oversight, and liquidity backstops. Emerging economies face both opportunities (inclusion) and risks (capital flow volatility, monetary sovereignty). International coordination is essential.

Analysis

Tokenization is often described as a technological upgrade enabling faster settlement, cheaper payments, and programmable assets. But it is a lot more.

When financial assets and liabilities move onto shared digital ledgers, the structure of the financial system itself changes. Processes that today occur sequentially — execution, clearing, settlement —can now happen simultaneously, governed by software rather than institutional processes. Risk could migrate away from the balance sheets of institutions such as banks and investment funds towards the companies managing services and market infrastructures. The potential points of failure could change, so the policy frameworks must adapt accordingly.

Our research shows that policy choices made now will shape whether tokenization strengthens or fragments the financial system. Additional work goes deeper into new trends in payments and asset tokenization and how financial market infrastructures will evolve in a tokenized economy.

What really changes?

Payments, securities, and derivatives have been digital for decades, but they still run on centralized databases and sequential processes. Instructions are transmitted, trades are matched, settlements are delayed on purpose, and reconciliation follows. These frictions add cost and time but provide buffers, safety, and liquidity management, by allowing time for intervention in moments of stress or errors.

Tokenization goes a step beyond simple digitization by embedding ownership and transfer directly within the asset itself. When a tokenized asset changes hands, smart contracts can execute trades, transfer ownership, and move payments simultaneously — all on a shared ledger. Processes that once required days of clearing and reconciliation are now completed in moments.

Frictions disappear — but so do buffers. Liquidity demands materialize in real time, collateral calls can be automated, and failures can propagate faster than institutions or supervisors can respond. Risk that once were borne by the balance sheet of individual institutions behind a transaction become increasingly concentrated in the platforms and code that govern these transactions.

This shift fundamentally challenges a system built around reconciliations, reporting cycles, and delayed settlement.

Settlement in a tokenized world

Every financial system depends on a core settlement asset. Traditionally, that role has belonged to central bank money — in particular, the risk-free reserves that financial institutions hold at the central bank. Tokenization reopens this question by enabling multiple forms of digital money to circulate on shared ledgers. Three forms are emerging.Tokenized bank deposits are a new digital representation of an existing liability — the commercial bank deposit — and inherit its regulatory and institutional framework.

 Programmability enables atomic (simultaneous) settlement and more efficient liquidity management. But continuous settlement reduces banks’ ability to react to unforeseen circumstances, heightening the importance of real-time liquidity backstops.

Stablecoins offer programmability and global reach, but they rest on a promise: par convertibility with other forms of money. Maintaining that parity depends on reserve quality, market liquidity, and issuer resilience — and even fully backed stablecoins have been vulnerable under stress.

Tokenized central bank reserves eliminate credit risk in the settlement asset itself. But they require central banks to operate — or closely govern — new programmable infrastructures, extending their operational role well beyond traditional payment systems. How much functionality to embed in public platforms, and how much to leave to the private sector, remains an open and consequential design choice.

Banks will change, not disappear

Tokenization does not eliminate banks. It changes how they fund themselves, manage liquidity, and bear risk.

On the liability side, tokenized deposits unify payments, client settlement, and treasury functions on shared ledgers. On the asset side, tokenized lending allows rules — interest accrual, collateral triggers — to be embedded in smart contracts. Risk monitoring becomes continuous, allowing timely enforcement.


Capital markets face a similar transformation. Tokenized securities compress issuance, trading, settlement, custody, and compliance into integrated workflows. Counterparty risk declines, but liquidity demands become continuous. Automated redemptions and margining can improve efficiency in normal times—and accelerate stress in periods of market strain.

Collateralized markets may be among the earliest beneficiaries. High‑quality assets can be mobilized quickly and across platforms. But when infrastructure becomes the central hub, governance failures become systemic events.
Efficiency meets concentration

Permissioned shared ledgers concentrate activity on fewer platforms. This consolidation improves liquidity and efficiency, but amplifies the importance of operational resilience, cybersecurity, and crisis management.

Interoperability is equally critical. Fragmentation and fragile links between platforms could trap liquidity and reintroduce risk through the back door.

Instantaneous and 24/7 settlement is a defining feature of tokenization that challenges central banks’ and markets’ practices designed around business‑day cycles. Liquidity backstops may need to operate directly on tokenized infrastructures, at machine speed. Designing them raises complex questions about access, control, and moral hazard.

As financial logic moves into smart contracts, the rules governing transactions are increasingly written in code and procedures become automated.

Effective oversight must therefore extend beyond institutions to the code itself. Critical smart contracts could become too important to fail — requiring increased oversight and supervision, much as systemically important financial institutions do today.

Legal foundations matter just as much. Market participants must know whether tokenized records constitute definitive ownership, whether settlement finality is legally recognized, and which jurisdiction’s law applies. Without clarity, tokenization will remain fragmented and peripheral.

Heightened risks

For emerging and developing economies, faster and cheaper cross‑border payments, improved market access, and more efficient settlement could help overcome long‑standing inefficiencies. But the risks are equally significant.

Tokenized assets and money can move across borders almost instantaneously, bypassing the frictions that currently slow down capital flows and give policymakers time to respond. Volatile capital movements, rapid currency substitution, and erosion of monetary sovereignty become more likely — especially if privately issued global stablecoins become dominant means of payment.

Strong domestic policy frameworks remain the first line of defense. But international coordination is essential if tokenization is to support, rather than undermine, inclusion and stability.

Policy choices

The future of tokenized finance will be determined by a complex set of decisions that policymakers will have to make about issues such as the role of public and private money; the degree of interoperability; legal frameworks; code governance; liquidity backstops, and others. The best outcome would be of a system that provides elements of the required public goods such as risk-free settlement assets and internationally aligned oversight, while encouraging and enabling desirable features such as interoperability.

This article was published by IMF Blog


About Tobias Adrian
Tobias Adrian is Financial Counsellor and Director of the Monetary and Capital Markets Department, IMF.
View all posts by Tobias Adrian →

 

Success story brown bear: 3D analysis reveals the secret of their climate resilience

Staatliche Naturwissenschaftliche Sammlungen Bayerns

LinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Lower jaws of fossil brown bears from the Le Régourdou Cave, Dordogne, France, dating back 243,000 years, and from the Postes Cave, Extremadura, Spain, dating back 71,000–104,000 years. The brown bear from the Postes Cave lived during a warmer interglacial period and had a shorter row of teeth than Ice Age brown bears, as well as a shorter lever arm for its masticatory muscles.

view more 

Credit: Mónica Villalba de Alvarado

Brown bears have lived in Europe for 175.000 years, right up to the present day. A new study now shows that, over the course of their evolution, the masticatory function of the lower jaws of European brown bears (Ursus arctos arctos) changed significantly time and again and did so in sync with the climate, alternating between warm and cold periods. This is the conclusion reached by zoologist Anneke van Heteren of the Bavarian State Collections of Natural History (SNSB) and her colleague from the Universidad del País Vasco, Donostia-San Sebastián. In their study, the two researchers compared the lower jaws of fossil and modern brown bears with those of their closest relatives, including two extinct cave bear species (Ursus spelaeus and Ursus deningeri) as well as polar bears (Ursus maritimus).

Detailed geometric 3D analyses show that the basic jaw structurehas remained remarkably stable in European brown bears over thousands of years. In contrast to the specialized herbivorous cave bear or the carnivorous polar bear, the brown bear retained a versatile, omnivorous jaw structure. This has not changed drastically since the Pleistocene. The crucial flexibility, however, lies in the details: The researchers found subtle differences in lower jaw morphology in the area where the large chewing muscle, Musculus masseter, attaches. Here, the morphology of brown bears varies over the course of their evolution, depending on whether they lived during warm or cold climatic periods. The lower jaws of fossil brown bears from cold periods resemble those of modern bears native to cooler regions of the Northern Hemisphere and high-altitude areas. The jaws of fossil brown bears from warm periods, regardless of geological age, differ significantly from these. Apparently, changes in the available food supply for brown bears were reflected in the flexible adaptation of their masticatory musculature.

“This morphological flexibility of the masticatory structures in brown bears shows us that the animals were evidently able to adapt optimally to the selective demands of their environment. Their ability to cope with such extreme climatic fluctuations likely played a decisive role in their evolutionary success. Brown bears have been continuously present in Europe since the Middle Pleistocene. More specialized species, such as the cave bear, however, became extinct,” explains Anneke van Heteren, curator of mammals at the Bavarian State Collections of Natural History (SNSB) and lead author of the study. 

Lower jaw and skull bone of a Syrian brown bear Ursus arctos syriacus, a subspecies of the brown bear adapted to warmer climates, from the paleoanatomical collection of the SNSB.

Lower jaw of a Syrian brown bear Ursus arctos syriacus, a subspecies of the brown bear adapted to warmer climates from the paleoanatomical collection of the SNSB.

Skulls of brown bears from the SNSB’s paleoanatomical collection. On the right is a Syrian brown bear Ursus arctos syriacus, a subspecies adapted to warmer climates.

Credit

K. Hagemann, SNSB

Journal

Comptes Rendus Palevol

DOI

10.5852/cr-palevol2026v25a11 

Method of Research

Imaging analysis

Subject of Research

Animals

Article Title

Functional morphology of Pleistocene and Holocene brown bears (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758): a 3D geometric morphometric approach to masseter biomechanics and evolutionary ecology

Article Publication Date

1-Jul-2026

 

Study pinpoints how to minimize chances of dangerous wildlife encounters this summer

National park visitors’ activities greatly influence likelihood of encounters with wildlife that could result in conflict between people and animals, suggests study analyzing high-risk activities

Frontiers

Facebook

X
BlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

The more people expand into previously natural areas, the more wildlife and humans step on each other’s toes, leading to more interactions that may result in conflict. This includes national parks where people flock to recuperate and enjoy the outdoors.

Writing in Frontiers in Conservation Science, researchers in the UK have examined which animals are most likely to be involved in aggressive encounters – defined as potentially dangerous situations between humans and animals – during which activities they’re most likely to happen, and which activity-animal pairs hold particular risk.

“We found low‑impact activities were associated with the highest frequency of aggressive encounters, regardless of species,” said first author Holly Landles, a researcher at the University of York.

“Now we can point to precise high‑risk pairings, such as elk visiting townsite areas or mule deer encountered during dog walking,” added senior author Dr Shashank Balakrishna, a biologist at the University of York. “This allows park managers to focus resources, signage, and education where they are most needed.”

Interactions vary by activity

The researchers drew on a database of almost 3,500 reported incidents between 2010 and 2023 recorded by Parks Canada, selecting incidents involving humans and elk, black bears, grizzlies, coyotes, and mule deer. These species were chosen because they were involved in aggressive encounters most often in the dataset the team worked with. Seven types of activities park visitors were engaging in were included in the risk analysis: low-impact activities (hiking, wildlife observation), extreme sports (kayaking, climbing), animal-involved activities (dog-walking, horseback-riding), camping, transport-related activities (road cycling), townsite activities (golfing), and park operations.

Results showed that species mattered, but so did the type of activity and animal-activity combinations. Elk were involved in around 62% of all aggressive encounters, followed by grizzly bears (14%), black bears (13%), mule deer (7%), and coyotes (3%).

“Each species occupies a different ecological role, so they perceive human threat differently,” Balakrishna pointed out. “Elk sometimes avoid humans, but at other times use human presence as refuge from predators. This unpredictability may explain why they top the list for aggressive encounters.”

On the activity side, low-impact activities were most associated with aggressive encounters, making up around 25% of incidents, followed by townsite activities at 22%, which may be particularly risky due to the unfamiliar stress wildlife faces in more urban environments. Adventure sports accounted for just over 4%.

When combining activity type with species, the researchers found certain animals were more likely to be encountered during certain activities. Elk, for example, were involved in over 73% of run-ins happening at townsites and in 57% of incidents recorded during adventure sports.

Grizzly and black bears were most often encountered during low-impact activities, making up 45% and 43% of these encounters, respectively. This may be because they are particularly prone to reacting aggressively to surprise encounters, which are more likely to happen during quiet activities in forested areas.

Mule deer and coyotes were most often involved in aggressive encounters in townsite settings. “Mule deer also showed more aggression during activities involving pets, likely because dogs resemble their natural predators,” said Balakrishna.

Whistles, talk, and preparation

This, however, doesn’t mean that the activities examined here should be avoided altogether during park visits. “We recommend simple precautions,” said Landles. “Announcing yourself is a good idea, especially for grizzly bears. Taking whistles, talking, or hiking in larger groups can help, too. Keeping leashes short when large herds are present is simple but effective.”

In addition, park visitors can check park information, including bear or herd sightings and trail closures, on the day of their visit.

The researchers said their data only included incidents reported to park staff, so the number of aggressive encounters – particularly those where people weren’t harmed – may be underestimated. There also was some data that wasn’t available, such as animal sex, how many people were involved, or how long they spent on the activity, so the findings don’t show cause-effect relationships.

Yet they are useful for identifying what future studies need to examine, said the authors. In addition, the results provide pointers which park rangers can follow in national parks worldwide. In many parks, recommendations like dynamic trail ratings and improved signage have already been implemented. Now it is on park visitors to act responsibly, the team said.  For example, abiding by trail signage – also in remote areas – can help decrease the number of interactions that might result in situations in which humans, animals, or both suffer.

“Ultimately, both people and wildlife lose during aggressive encounters,” concluded Landles. “Our findings helps us understand real patterns behind these encounters so we can reduce their frequency and help people and wildlife coexist more safely.”

---

Journal

Frontiers in Conservation Science

DOI

10.3389/fcosc.2026.1764328 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Article Title

Aggressive encounters with large mammals vary by recreational activity type in Canadian national parks

Article Publication Date

2-Jul-2026

Shipping rates soar as retailers race to beat looming Trump tariffs

By

The Canadian Press

Opens in new window

Published: July 02, 2026 

A gantry crane operator removes a container from a cargo ship while docked at port, in Vancouver, on Tuesday, July 16, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

MONTREAL — Christmas is coming early this year. And it’s pushing up shipping rates.

A glut of early wholesale orders for everything from holiday decorations to home furniture has propelled maritime shipping costs to four-year highs as a result of tariff uncertainty and the Iran war, with potential repercussions for consumers.

Industry specialists say retailers and importers — especially in the United States — are rushing to book shipments to get ahead of a potential fresh round of U.S. tariffs on dozens of countries that’s expected near the end of July.

The surge in demand is boosting seaborne transport prices across the globe.

“Taken together, the early start to peak-season demand is the main cause of spiking freight rates,” said Judah Levine, head of research at shipping platform Freightos, in an email.

He attributed the “front-loading” primarily to presumed tariffs, but also to fuel price increases that stem from the months-long closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Large shippers have long-term contracts with carriers where fuel costs are adjusted quarterly. The higher fuel costs those carriers incurred over the past three months will be passed along to shippers starting this summer, Levine said.

Similar arrangements between importers and manufacturers — whose costs have also gone up due to the spike in energy prices — give shippers all the more motivation to get their orders in now.

“In this sense, part of the early jump (in shipping) is an indirect impact of the Hormuz closure,” Levine said.

According to the Platts Container Index, global shipping rates for containers leaped about 80 per cent in the 30 days ended June 24 to hit their highest level since April 2022, when pandemic-related supply chain problems peaked.

Rates close to home have vaulted even higher. The average price of a 40-foot container hauled from East Asia to North America’s west coast climbed 120 per cent over the past six weeks to US$6,200, according to Freightos.

“People are stocking up,” said John Corey, president of the Freight Management Association of Canada.

Angst over potential U.S. levies of at least 10 per cent on countries undergoing an American probe into forced labour practices makes up part of the explanation. So does the fragility of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, whose July 1 renewal deadline just passed.

“It’s the uncertainty of what’s going to happen,” Corey said.

The White House said last month Canada is among the 59 countries plus the European Union that should be subject to an additional tariff over allegations they allow goods produced by forced labour into American supply chains. However, the vast majority of merchandise exported to the U.S. from Canada is compliant with the existing continental trade pact and exempt from levies.

As for the July 1 renewal deadline on that deal, Corey considers it “much ado about nothing,” as do most business leaders. Nonetheless, the uncertainty lingers, prompting companies to play it safe and order supplies before the situation shifts.

“All this ambiguity creates a frenzy of booking, which drives prices up,” said Lisa McEwan, co-owner of customs brokerage Hemisphere Freight.

“I’m telling all of my clients, ‘Get it booked, get it shipped.’”

She says her clients are ordering everything from clothing and holiday decor to tables, televisions and tiles earlier than usual, and that customers will pay the price at the checkout counter.

“The people who are going to be affected the most are going to be the average household consumer,” she said.

“They will bear the brunt of it.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 2, 2026.

Christopher Reynolds, The Canadian Press

Carney Backs B.C. Tanker Ban as Alberta Unveils Pipeline Plan

By Julianne Geiger - Jul 02, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Carney threw a wrench into Alberta's West Coast pipeline ambitions on Thursday just hours before Premier Danielle Smith was set to unveil details of the province's long-awaited proposal.

Speaking alongside B.C. Premier David Eby in Vancouver, Carney reaffirmed that Ottawa will maintain the federal ban on oil tankers along British Columbia's North Coast, effectively taking one of the most attractive export corridors off the table before Alberta's proposal even reached the federal government.

The announcement came as part of a multibillion-dollar agreement between Ottawa and British Columbia aimed at advancing resource development while preserving the North Coast tanker moratorium.

Smith's government is pitching a privately financed, one-million-barrel-per-day pipeline to Canada's West Coast and wants Ottawa to designate it as a project of national interest. The proposal is intended to boost Canada's export capacity, reduce dependence on the U.S. market, and strengthen the country's energy security.

But keeping the tanker ban intact immediately narrows the project's options.

It doesn’t directly kill the pipeline, but it does remove one of the most politically and geographically attractive export corridors.

The political signals coming out of British Columbia, meanwhile, were surprisingly mixed. Eby reiterated his opposition to lifting the tanker ban but also acknowledged that pipelines fall under federal jurisdiction and said his government would not go to court to stop a federally approved project. Instead, B.C. secured a commitment that it would be compensated for the environmental risks should a pipeline ultimately move forward.

The result: Alberta gets consideration for its proposed pipeline, British Columbia keeps its tanker moratorium, and both sides claim victory.

Investors may see it differently.

The project still lacks a private developer, must clear federal review, navigate indigenous consultation, and now faces additional logistical questions about where its oil would actually be loaded onto tankers.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com

B.C.’s multibillion-dollar MOU with feds retains northern tanker ban

By

The Canadian Press

Opens in new window

Updated: July 02, 2026 

B.C. Premier David Eby (left), provincial Housing Minister Christine Boyle and federal Housing Minister Gregor Robertson (right) look on as Prime Minister Mark Carney makes an announcement at a construction site in Vancouver on Thursday, June 18, 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito

The plan for a new Alberta bitumen pipeline to the British Columbia coast came into focus Thursday as Prime Minster Mark Carney toggled between the two provinces to meet leaders and make announcements.

At a news conference in Vancouver, Carney and B.C. Premier David Eby unveiled a memorandum of understanding that Carney says will help unlock more than $200 billion in new investment, with British Columbia as the “linchpin.”

The deal also maintains the tanker ban off B.C.’s northern coast while also promising the province will be compensated for environmental risks should Ottawa OK a pipeline to the coast.

B.C. will also get compensated for any new line in a framework that is to be negotiated later. There’s also a promise for an emergency response fund to be held in trust by the province and First Nations.

The moves effectively open the way for a bitumen pipeline to B.C.’s southern region. Carney was to travel to Calgary later Thursday to make a joint announcement with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Smith’s government has been pushing for a new pipeline, but Carney declined to answer specific questions ahead of the news conference with Smith. “You can draw your own conclusions, but you can also wait until this afternoon,” he said.

FILE: Prime Minister Mark Carney, right, signs an MOU with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Calgary, Alta., Thursday, Nov. 27, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

Carney’s deal with B.C. extends far beyond the pipeline.

It sees the two governments commit to supporting new and expanding liquefied natural gas projects and exporting infrastructure, studying potential investments in the province’s existing ports and a major federal funding promise for the North Coast Transmission Line to deliver electricity to communities and projects in the region.

“This agreement is comprehensive. It’s ambitious. And it will help transform the entire Canadian economy,” Carney said.

Eby said it puts the province on a “generational path to prosperity” and conceded that while B.C. doesn’t have to support any potential pipeline proposal, his government won’t fight it in court.

“This is an area of federal responsibility under the law. We learned this the hard way on the last pipeline,” Eby said.

“That’s why this agreement matters. It ensures that the northern tanker ban stays in place, and it ensures that if the pipeline goes ahead, British Columbians are fairly compensated for the environmental risks we would take.”

Eby’s deal with Carney also says B.C. recognizes Canada’s interests in “optimizing” the existing southern Trans Mountain Pipeline, increasing throughput to 1.2 million barrels a day, up from 890,000.

Eby had been critical of a possible Alberta pipeline to the West Coast, particularly if it meant abandoning the tanker ban.

Alberta’s pipeline pitch stems from an energy deal signed between Smith and Carney last fall.

The Alberta accord saw Carney walk back a number of environmental laws and Smith’s government take on the initial planning work for a pipeline.

Carney has said the go-ahead for any such project depends on it be being paid for and run privately while Alberta must also advance a major carbon capture and storage project being pitched by an alliance of oil producers.

A private backer for any new Alberta pipeline has yet to come forward or be announced.

The pipeline is not only an economic issue but a point of political tension that has led to Smith announcing a fall referendum on whether Alberta should stay in Canada or take steps to hold another vote to leave Confederation.

Smith has said she wants Alberta to stay, but she’s also said federal policies and rules in recent years have stymied Alberta’s wellspring oil industry, leading some to say it’s time the province go it alone.

To that end, the pipeline has become a political mirror, with each side seeing it either as another form of Alberta alienation or co-operation.

Both Smith and Carney say the deal shows Canada can work. But leaders of Alberta’s separatist movement say if their province remains beholden to deals with Ottawa to get its own resources to market, then Confederation remains broken.

This report by Chuck Chiang and Jack Farrell, The Canadian Press, was first published July 2, 2026.

With files by David Baxter in Ottawa

 

Agreement between B.C. and Ottawa supports new Alberta pipeline

By

Michael Franklin

Opens in new window

Updated: July 02, 2026 at 2:56PM EDT

CALGARY — The Carney government is moving ahead with a plan that lays out more of the groundwork for a new pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast.

While the exact agreement is yet to be released, some details were released on Thursday, ahead of an availability featuring Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

A news conference with Smith had been scheduled for this morning, but it has been delayed to begin at 6 MT/8 ET.

Smith inked an agreement with Carney last fall, and their memorandum of understanding pledges to pave the way for a bitumen pipeline to the West Coast.

After that deal, B.C. Premier David Eby voiced his displeasure with the idea, but Thursday’s agreement seems to have smoothed some of that over.

“British Columbia acknowledges Canada’s agreement with Alberta on a new trans-provincial pipeline, which is dependent on construction of the Pathways Carbon Capture and Sequestration project and the duty to consult First Nations,” Carney’s office wrote in an online statement.

“Although B.C. does not seek this project, it recognises its constitutional obligations and commits to acting in good faith to engage in the necessary routing and permitting discussions, within its jurisdiction, provided the following reciprocal commitments are met.”

Some of the terms of the agreement include Ottawa engaging in “early, consistent and meaningful consultation” with Indigenous groups and Ottawa and Alberta agreeing on “an economic and revenue framework” for B.C.

Ottawa will, however, maintain its ban on oil tankers along the northern coast of B.C.

The revenue framework for the agreement will mean that B.C. will be given an annual royalty payment by the pipeline’s operator and there will be an environmental liability and emergency response fund established.

That environmental protection plan will also include more federal investments for “a world leading coastal spill response regime.”

In return, B.C. will need to help optimize the efficiency of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, Carney’s office said.

It said the capacity of that line will increase from 890,000 barrels per day to 1,190,000 barrels per day through “drag-reducing agents and mainline optimization.”

Ottawa will assist with B.C.’s capital costs and B.C. residents will also be entitled to “a fair share” of the economic benefits of the Trans Mountain optimization project.

The pipeline deal is tied to progress on a major carbon capture network by the province’s biggest oil producers, who have said they shouldn’t have to bear the multi-billion dollar cost alone.

Alberta is preparing to hold a referendum this fall on separating from Canada and Smith has said the deal with Ottawa shows Canada can work, but those pushing for the province to quit Confederation say it cannot fix long-standing grievances.

With files from the Canadian PressOpens in new window

Michael Franklin

Opens in new window

Digital Lead/Senior Digital Producer, CTV News Calgary

Alberta planning post-Canada Day pipeline announcement

By

The Canadian Press

Opens in new window

Published: July 01, 2026 

Prime Minister Mark Carney is coming to next week’s Calgary Stampede. Carney, left, meets with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as the pair attend a Stampede breakfast in Calgary, Alta., Saturday, July 5, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

CALGARY — It’s the Alberta government’s self-imposed deadline to submit its proposal for a new West Coast oil pipeline to the federal major projects office.

But since it’s Canada Day, the province is waiting a day to make what it calls a “major announcement,” while Energy Minister Brian Jean is also set to deliver a speech at the Calgary Petroleum Club on Thursday.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is set to be in Alberta this week as well, with the Calgary Stampede set to begin on Friday.

The Alberta government is acting as proponent for a plan to ship up to one million barrels a day to a yet-to-be-determined B.C. port, with no private-sector builder coming forward yet.

The major projects office was set up a year ago to speed along infrastructure deemed in Canada’s national interest.

The province has said it aims to have shovels in the ground in September 2027, with pipeline startup in the mid-2030s.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 1, 2026.