Summary

• Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government proposed major changes to the federal assessment process for mining, oil and gas and other infrastructure projects.
• The proposed changes include shifting assessments from an agency under the federal environment minister to regulators that report to the natural resources minister.
• Former ministers, First Nations and environmental advocates are criticizing the proposal, some calling it a more significant rollback of environmental law than was seen under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

Last year, Prime Minister Mark Carney established an office tasked with fast-tracking handpicked major industrial projects. Now, he says that’s not enough. He has a new proposal on the table meant to roll out the red carpet for all projects requiring federal approval, including pipelines, mines, transmission lines and other infrastructure.

The proposal, unveiled last week, would create “federal economic zones” where certain developments can be “pre-approved,” and provide exceptions to several rules governing fossil fuel and nuclear oversight, habitat preservation, species at risk protection and major project reviews.

It would fundamentally change the way the country scrutinizes industrial development and consults with Indigenous Peoples, in some cases shifting reviews at an agency under the purview of the environment minister over to federal bodies that report to the natural resources minister.

The government outlined its plan in two discussion papers, but it will need to flesh out the details and formally introduce them as part of new legislation, before they can be implemented in law. The Liberals are now able to pass legislation much easier, after they secured a Parliamentary majority following April’s byelections and the addition of five floor-crossing MPs to their caucus.

The House of Commons is on a two-week break, scheduled to return May 25. Meanwhile, the proposal is open for public comment through June 7. 

Here’s what you need to know.

Who wanted this change? Who didn’t?

The government says the alterations are necessary so Canada can better compete with other countries for investment dollars, and strengthen the Indigenous consultation process. It said the process to build things is “often slow, expensive and confusing” and the government must “go further to streamline review and approvals processes.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses across the country, also believes the government’s fast-tracking regime has “not gone far enough” and is hoping Carney continues to “peel back some of the red tape layers that have been holding back business success.”

Canada’s oil and gas industry has consistently advocated since Carney took office for his government to overhaul environmental assessments to turbocharge fossil fuel growth. Industry executives have personally pushed this position despite the industry enjoying big profits off the war in Iran, and despite the scientific conclusion that carbon pollution, of which the oil and gas industry is the largest contributor in Canada, is furthering destructive climate change that is leading to myriad health problems and premature death for Canadians.

Two former Liberal environment ministers have harshly criticized Carney’s proposal. Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault, who was the federal environment minister from 2021 to 2025, told the Toronto Star Carney’s plan is “worse” than the changes under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, which resulted in some high-profile legal challenges. Former Liberal MP Catherine McKenna, who held the same post from 2015 to 2019, told the Canadian Press Carney’s proposal will lead to a “lack of trust” and lawsuits, ultimately making the project approval process slower, not faster.

Ecojustice, an environmental law charity, has described the changes as potentially ushering in “the biggest rollback of environmental protections in a generation.” The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which represents 63 First Nations in that province, said it raises “serious concerns that Canada is moving toward a system where speed takes precedence over Treaty obligations, environmental stewardship and First Nations consent.”

The government wants to create ‘federal economic zones’ where developments are ‘pre-approved’

Carney’s government wants to legalize “federal economic zones” which it says could include areas designated for energy production and transmission, industrial regions, transportation and telecommunications. 

Inside these zones, the government would “pre-approve” certain developments, subject to conditions, and exempt projects from requiring individual environmental reviews — instead just requiring one overarching assessment.

It said the zones, and the activities allowed in them, would be “clearly defined.” Consultation with Indigenous Peoples would be a “key part” of the process, it added, including on determining the conditions for development inside the zones. The agreement of provinces is also “essential,” it said.

“This co-operation between federal and provincial governments would allow projects to be fast-tracked under both federal and provincial regimes,” reads the discussion paper. 

Sound familiar? Ontario passed similar legislation last year

A provincial regime is already in place in Ontario, after Premier Doug Ford’s government passed Bill 5 last year. The bill established the similar-sounding Special Economic Zones Act. Inside Ontario’s economic zones, the government can select certain proponents and projects, and exempt them from some municipal by-laws and provincial laws, including environmental protections. 

Critics have said Ontario’s law threatens wetlands, watersheds, peatlands and endangered species, and the Indigenous communities who rely on them. It’s subject to a court challenge from First Nations, asking for the law to be found unconstitutional.

The federal economic zones would be enabled through regional assessments, which are already an approach used by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to examine the cumulative effects of development in a given area. 

There is currently an ongoing federal regional assessment in the Ring of Fire, the mineral-rich area in the James Bay Lowlands known as Bakitanaamowin Aki, or “the Breathing Lands,” and Mammamattawa, or “many rivers coming together,” by the First Nations that call it home. 

Days after passing Bill 5, Ford said he would designate the Ring of Fire a special economic zone under Ontario law “as quickly as possible.” But in March this year, in a sudden shift in tone, Ford said he didn’t “need” to use these powers anymore to develop the area due to partnerships with several, but not all, First Nations communities in the region.

The Ontario government has long spoken about the region becoming a major mining hub. But an interim Ring of Fire regional assessment report has pointed to the need for environmental monitoring in the area’s boreal forest and peatlands, and the need for communities to urgently access health care. 

The provincial government, meanwhile, has been withholding scientific data and funding as part of the assessment process, and is not at the table with the First Nations and federal government representatives seeing it through, The Narwhal has reported.

New rules would change the role of the federal environmental review agency

Carney’s proposal would remove the ability of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to examine any pipeline projects that cross provincial or national borders, as well as any transmission lines or “offshore renewable energy projects.”

The agency, accountable to Environment, Climate Change and Nature Minister Julie Dabrusin, examines projects for sustainability, environmental protection and Indigenous Rights. It carries out its assessments “grounded in sound science, rigorous process and due diligence,” according to its website.

“Does Canada need to weaken its environmental laws to allow projects to proceed? No,” the agency declares on a frequently asked questions page. “Do federal policies prevent LNG, oil or pipeline projects from moving forward in Canada? No.”

Carney’s government is now of the opinion that issues like “poor coordination between government departments” are slowing down projects like pipelines. The government is proposing to shift assessments of certain projects away from the agency and over to two regulators that report to Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson. 

The job of reviewing all cross-border pipelines, transmission lines and offshore renewables would go to the Canada Energy Regulator, while the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would handle project reviews related to nuclear and uranium projects.

The government would also have the power to declare major pipelines “in the public interest,” before the energy regulator is required to complete its review of the project’s conditions or where the pipe would actually be laid.

At the same time, the government is proposing that the Impact Assessment Agency become the home of a new “Crown consultation hub” that would “ensure that each Indigenous group affected by a major project goes through one clear and coordinated consultation process for each project.” 

It is also proposing to assign the federal review coordinator at the agency the job of ensuring project assessments and federal permits “stay on track.” The government said it would change the law to ensure project reviews and permit reviews “happen at the same time” and that a federal decision would take no longer than one year.

Sound familiar again? Carney isn’t the first leader to try to fast-track industrial projects

Carney’s proposal is reminiscent of a shift that happened under Harper’s government, which tried to accelerate environmental assessments by moving more oil and gas oversight to the energy regulator’s predecessor, the National Energy Board, in 2012.

Years later, the National Energy Board came under scrutiny after the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the government’s approval of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion project, saying the board’s review of the project was flawed. The former Northern Gateway pipeline proposal also had its federal permits overturned by the Federal Court.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government passed the Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act, collectively through Bill C-69, allowing the government to consider the impact of natural resource projects on issues like climate change. But a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2023 found the assessment scheme “largely unconstitutional,” forcing Trudeau’s government to introduce a revised version of the law in 2024.

There will be new exemptions to Canada’s species at risk law and fish permits

Carney’s government wants to change “some federal laws” that it argued can make the regulatory process “slow, repetitive and less flexible.” One of these appears to be the Species At Risk Act, a federal law passed in 2002 that is meant to prevent species extinction and help with population recovery. 

The law has a clause known as the “jeopardy test,” that restricts permits for an activity affecting a species or its critical habitat, unless the government believes the activity “will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.”

Carney’s proposal would give the government the power to exempt projects from the application of this test. It said the power would be “limited” and have a “high threshold to be met,” would have to be in the “public interest” and would have to come after the proponent has made “all reasonable efforts” to avoid impacts.

The government also wants to offer more flexibility for permits that impact fish and fish habitat, when it comes to compensating for environmental harm. And it would allow “some early construction activities to start” before the government decides on the merits of a project, “if necessary permits are approved.”

Carney’s proposal also allows ministers to adjust certain conditions of a project assessment “in exceptional circumstances” and “adjust environmental conditions for projects of national interest, when needed.”

And it would hand the environment minister the power to issue a single federal document for certain projects that would include all federal decisions “required for a project to move forward.” It said experts in different departments would still review the project and provide advice, and enforcement would still be handled by the departments responsible. 

The changes come after Ford’s government in Ontario also removed the province’s Endangered Species Act and replaced it with the Species Conservation Act this year. That has had the effect of removing protection from many species.

After Ontario’s change, some threatened fish and birds are now only protected by federal laws. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• In briefing notes, officials with Canada’s natural resources department compared a federal office to a White House council tasked with stewarding energy projects forward.
• Canada’s Major Projects Office is meant to speed up developments including natural gas and mining.
• A First Nations leader noted Canada’s different constitutional framework, while environmental experts and advocates cautioned against following Trump’s push for “energy dominance.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s special office for speeding up major projects “operates similarly” to U.S. President Donald Trump’s energy “tiger team,” according to internal Canadian government records.

The comparison between Carney’s Major Projects Office and the president’s National Energy Dominance Council, or NEDC, are contained in a briefing note for Canadian Energy Minister Tim Hodgson that was obtained by The Narwhal through an access to information request.

“The NEDC operates similarly to the Major Projects Office,” the briefing note from Natural Resources Canada reads, “providing support to advance projects efficiently and address issues that may impede progress. It is a small group of officials working at the centre of government to facilitate decision-making.”

According to a description by one of its senior advisers, the U.S. council, which was created within the Executive Office of the president, is conceived as a “tiger team,” or a group of specialists hired to solve a specific problem. It offers “concierge, white glove service” to get mining and fossil fuel projects approved fast, the advisor said.

It’s chaired by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who has close ties to oil and gas producers, and the team has been involved in promoting mining, natural gas and a pipeline in Alaska. The briefing note shows Hodgson was scheduled to meet with Burgum last October.

Six months after Trump’s council was formed, Carney launched the Major Projects Office with a mandate to “streamline and accelerate” regulatory approvals for “nation-building” projects. The office is backed by the Privy Council Office, the department that supports the prime minister and cabinet.

So far, the prime minister has referred five mining projects and two natural gas projects to the office, as well as others in nuclear, electricity, ports and roads. He put Dawn Farrell, the former CEO of the oil pipeline company Trans Mountain, in charge.

During a visit to an energy conference in Houston in March, Hodgson remarked on the closeness of his office’s relationship with Burgum, and said, “the U.S. wants to achieve energy dominance. We support you in that view.”

The Narwhal approached Hodgson after he gave a speech at a First Nations Major Projects Coalition conference in Toronto on April 30, to ask about the comparison his department made with Trump’s team. The minister, while walking through the conference and chatting with an attendee, twice avoided taking questions, saying he was too busy. Another official suggested contacting his office.

A spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada said the comparison between the Major Projects Office and the U.S. council “was intended as a high-level description of function — not a statement of equivalence in mandate, governance or approach.”

The department also noted Canada’s “distinct constitutional, legal and policy framework that reflects our values and obligations” and said Canada’s office is “not limited to a single industry or sector.”

Treaty 8 Grand Chief says comparisons between Canada and U.S. approaches to development should be ‘treated very carefully’

Carney has pitched the Major Projects Office as working “in partnership” with Indigenous Peoples. He held summits last year with First Nations, Inuit and Métis rights holders. The office’s Indigenous Advisory Council is meant to help guide its work.

Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi, of Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, sits on the Major Projects Office’s Indigenous Advisory Council. He reacted to the comparison by noting that Canada’s different constitutional framework, including the Crown’s obligations to First Nations, means “speed cannot come at the expense of Treaty Rights.”

“What I can say is that any comparison between the Major Projects Office and a U.S. energy permitting model has to be treated very carefully. Canada operates within a different constitutional framework,” Mercredi said, including Treaty Rights, land claims and the duty to consult. “The Crown’s obligations to First Nations cannot be treated as permitting issues or obstacles to be managed around.”

He said there is value in the Major Projects Office if it improves government transparency and coordination and ensures First Nations are meaningfully involved in decisions that affect their lands, waters and Treaty Rights.

“But if the purpose is to simply move projects faster by narrowing, bypassing or compressing Crown obligations, that would be a serious concern,” he said.

Mercredi said his role on the Indigenous Advisory Council does not replace direct consultation with rights-holding nations and doesn’t satisfy the Crown’s legal obligations.

For Treaty 8 nations, he said, the issue isn’t whether Canada can build major projects — it’s whether Canada will honour treaties, respect First Nations jurisdiction and ensure decisions are made with “proper consultation, accommodation, environmental protection and real participation by the nations whose territories are affected.”

Canada’s Bill C-5 faces strong opposition, and a lawsuit

The government passed the Building Canada Act, part of Bill C-5, in June 2025, cementing a process in law to name projects in the “national interest.”

It has seen strong opposition from some Indigenous communities, as well as public interest groups, who argue it paves the way for the government to circumvent oversight that’s meant to protect the environment, public health and scientific integrity.

The Quebec Environmental Law Centre has launched a legal action asking the courts to strike down the law. The group announced April 27 it had gathered 11 other organizations who seek to intervene in the lawsuit.

The law centre’s executive director Geneviève Paul, reacting to the documents from the natural resources department, said decisions made behind closed doors are not in the interest of Canadians.

“The government of Canada needs to act responsibly and defend our institutions, not follow authoritarian trends and copy the jurisdictions which are dismantling the protections we need to move forward safely,” she said.

Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist at Greenpeace Canada, said it was “telling” that the federal department itself was comparing the two offices.

“I think many Canadians who voted for an ‘elbows up’ agenda would be surprised to learn that our natural resources minister went to Houston [in March] to tell Americans that he wants to help the Trump administration achieve energy dominance, which is code for expanding fossil fuels at any cost,” Stewart said.

Updated on May 5, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. ET: This story has been updated to include a statement from Natural Resources Canada that was sent after the given deadline.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In Chelsea Mazur’s dreams, she’s trying to use her inhaler but it’s not working. 

The 30-something Winnipegger was diagnosed with asthma as a child. For years, she has kept it under control. But last summer’s wildfires and heat wave in Manitoba, which choked the skies with toxic, heavy smoke for weeks, presented a dilemma.

To cool off her scorching apartment, Mazur had to run her air conditioner. This pulled in smoky air, which triggered her asthma and forced her to use her inhaler. 

She began refilling her prescription more often, worried she might run out, and checking the air quality index daily before leaving her home. The anxiety and stress of her hypervigilance invaded her sleep.

“I’d have a dream where I’m having trouble breathing,” she said in an interview with The Narwhal. In her dream, she reaches for her inhaler, but it doesn’t function. Then she wakes up. “There was more of that last summer,” she said.

Mazur, who works as a digital content specialist at the University of Manitoba, said she knows wildfires are becoming more frequent and more intense due to climate change, which is being driven by carbon pollution from fossil fuel use. She considers herself lucky she can access medicine for her asthma, but fears what the future may hold as the planet continues to heat up.

“It makes me worry about when I’m older, in my 60s and 70s. What’s it going to be like then to have asthma?” she said. “What’s the air quality going to be like, and how is it going to affect me?” 

More than five million Canadians, like Mazur, live with respiratory conditions. As climate change makes wildfire seasons worse, many of them pay the price with their lungs.

Smoke days were responsible for up to a 23.6 per cent increase in asthma-related hospital emergency visits in Ontario in 2023, according to research published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Almost all respondents to a 2025 Asthma Canada survey reported worsening asthma symptoms with poor air quality, and most also reported a decline in their mental health.

Smoke from wildfires is a form of air pollution, carrying toxic gases like sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, as well as fine particulate matter. Other sources of air pollution, from car and truck exhaust to power plants and oil and gas facilities, are also hazardous to our health.

Air pollution can cause heart disease, strokes, chronic lung diseases and cancer, the World Health Organization notes. Federal research has found it contributes to about 17,400 premature deaths each year in Canada. In B.C., a nine-year-old died in 2023 after an asthma attack was made worse by wildfire smoke.

And that’s just one health impact of pollution and extreme weather. People exposed to air pollution also have a higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, according to a study in the journal PLOS Medicine. Doctors and counsellors across Canada note that conditions from poor mental health to Lyme disease to detached retinas can be linked to the effects of a warming world.

When Canadians talk about affordability, the discussion often revolves around the cost of fuel. While we pay for gasoline and diesel with our credit cards, in study after study, scientists have shown we also pay with our bodies. 

In broad terms, it’s possible to juxtapose the economic output of fossil fuels with health costs. The federal energy regulator, for example, has reported the total value of crude oil exports from Canada was $138 billion in 2024. A Health Canada report that same year found the total cost of health impacts attributable to air pollution in 2018 was $146 billion.

But in other ways, it’s tough to quantify how much fossil fuels and climate change are costing Canadians and our health-care systems. 

There’s a perpetual ripple effect of consequences that often go unaccounted for, Ottawa physician Helen Hsu said. Hsu specializes in addiction and mental health and is a spokesperson for the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

The indirect costs of climate change show up in things like premature deaths, she said, or the number of days people are sick and can’t work — which also brings a financial cost for businesses, though she’d rather not focus on that.

“It feels a bit ghoulish to say, ‘Well, how much do you contribute to our economy?’ ” Hsu said.

“I think certainly we do pay with our bodies, and we need to start really thinking about that.”

Alex Goatcher paid for B.C.’s 2021 heat dome and wildfires in terms of both physical and mental health, he told The Narwhal in an interview. That year a high-pressure system trapped heat on the ground, like an oven. It led to 619 deaths. Scientists have connected the severity of the wildfires and heat during this time to climate change.

Goatcher is a visitor services worker for Parks Canada and was living in Field, B.C., and working at Yoho National Park when the heat and fires trapped him inside for weeks.

He said he loves hiking on his days off, but couldn’t venture outside due to his asthma. Air conditioners were uncommon in the area until recently, he said, so he didn’t have one at the time.

“Being stuck inside during the prime of summer, with it being scorching hot and the smoke, it really negatively affected my mental health, to the point that I noticed my interactions with my neighbours were more hostile,” Goatcher said.

Adding to Goatcher’s frustration was the way his asthma disrupted not just his immediate work, but his long-term career prospects. His supervisor, concerned for his health, ended up grounding Goatcher during the heat dome when other staff were sent out. He was also forced to turn down an internal job opportunity because it would have involved working outdoors. 

“It never crossed my mind about the smoke and the fires and all that,” he said. “I never thought that this would be any sort of thing I’d have to really deal with.”

Métis sociologist Trisha McOrmond is on the national council of the volunteer climate action network For Our Kids. She uses her training in trauma-informed coaching when broaching the topic of climate change with people who are more vulnerable to extreme weather, including those who work outdoors in jobs like construction or farming.

“There is a level of frustration, and almost like a compartmentalization,” she said — a defence mechanism people use to avoid confronting the stress of knowing they will have to deal with more climate-change consequences at their job. “It’s hard for them to open up and have those conversations, because they have to put it away.”

She said it’s a challenge to put a specific dollar figure on the mental-health impacts of evacuations or other climate-related personal emergencies, because they can appear years after specific events and seem disconnected.

“They’re not showing up by people saying, ‘Oh, I’m worried about climate change.’ It’s showing up as disengagement at work, it’s showing up as [fatigue and burnout]. It’s showing up as increased domestic violence and interpersonal violence,” McOrmond said.

“We don’t see the cost directly, because we don’t have a system that measures those costs. And since we don’t measure them, we don’t see them.”

Most Canadians have come to understand how some unhealthy behaviours are connected to their health — like how smoking cigarettes increases their risk of lung cancer. But many still don’t see the associations between fossil fuel use, climate change and health impacts, Doris Grinspun, the chief executive officer of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, said in an interview.

This is especially true for work days lost to climate-linked health problems, Grinspun said. 

“I don’t think people really are connecting the dots,” she said. 

“When more pipelines get built, or we will not put an end to fossil fuels, we don’t say what the consequences will be, in human life, in disease, in death and in debt. We are already paying for it.”

Those costs manifest in ways we may not recognize — like our vision.

Particulate matter, certain gases and other pollutants hurt our eyes as well as our lungs, Montreal ophthalmologist  Marie-Claude Robert said. Research has connected higher levels of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide with more hospital emergency department visits for conjunctivitis, or pink eye.

Other research has suggested a link between heat waves and an increased risk of retinal detachment, which can cause flashes of light and dark spots in vision, as well as blindness if left untreated.

“In my personal practice, when we had heavy smog in Montreal from wildfires out west or up north, a lot of our patients would come in with acute worsening of their symptoms from that poor air quality,” Robert, who represents the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, said.

There are a limited amount of treatments for these symptoms, and each one comes with costs. High-quality artificial tears, for example, can cost up to $30 a bottle and are usually not covered by insurance, she said.

Climate change is also increasing the risk of Lyme disease, as ticks spread into more locations and last longer each season. That disease can lead to chronic disabilities that can remove someone from the workforce, Hsu, the Ottawa physician, said. She’s personally seen a middle-aged man with no pre-existing medical conditions who contracted a tick-borne illness and became paralyzed for months.

Hidden costs also fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, those with pre-existing disabilities and pregnant women, Hsu said. 

Heat can trigger premature labour, and keeping preterm babies alive is very expensive for the health-care system. It’s also emotionally and financially difficult for parents — premature birth is the leading cause of mortality in infants in Canada, and those that survive can have lifelong respiratory issues. 

Climate change-related health costs also show up for those who live in remote regions, including First Nations who have to be evacuated from wildfires in their territories, and Inuit whose lands are warming faster than the rest of the world.

And the financially vulnerable are least able to afford measures to protect themselves, like air conditioners or air purifiers. 

Hsu said one of her patients is paralyzed from the neck down and can’t afford air conditioning. During heat waves, he often passes out.

“He’s just living in a state of suffering every summer, and it’s incredibly unfair. It’s wrong that we’re asking those who are most vulnerable in our society to pay that cost,” she said.

For Melanie Hoffman, a school board trustee and community organizer from Edmonton, the emotional toll and financial costs of climate change are front and centre.

As an infant, Hoffman’s now eight-year-old daughter contracted a virus that infects the respiratory tract and had to be hospitalized, eventually requiring airway reconstruction surgery, she said. As a result, she pays close attention to air quality.

A few summers ago, when the city was engulfed in wildfire smoke, Hoffman realized her daughter’s outdoor-focused camp didn’t have guidelines in place for how to accommodate smoke days by bringing the kids inside.

“I felt really concerned for my daughter’s health, but also for the youth that were running the camp. This was their summer job, and they were required to be outside. They weren’t given the tools to manage that,” she said.

She and her husband had to solve the logistical problem of who could take time off work to keep their daughter home. She understands that this is a privilege. 

“If your kids need you home, if you’re self employed, you’re going to pay for that in lost revenue. And if you don’t have benefits from your employer, you’re going to pay in lost days of work,” she said.

Just as difficult was navigating the tension between wanting her to be able to go to the camp and the uncertainty about exactly how harmful the long-term consequences of exposure can be.

“I had not processed for myself the fact that these are the rest of the summers of my daughter’s life. Growing up, certainly in her youth, she is not going to know a summer that isn’t in a changing climate,” she said.

Hoffman holds a PhD in chemistry, is the former program manager for Capital Region EcoSchools with the Alberta Council for Environmental Education and volunteers with the Climate Reality Project Canada. She knows science-based climate solutions, like transitioning to renewable energy sources, using heat pumps and improving public transit, work. But, she said, there’s “an issue of political will and cultural inertia.”

McOrmond, the sociologist, sees a glimmer of hope in the course she teaches on systems thinking, a way of examining the different components of why the world is set up the way it is and how decisions are made as a result. She says students bring excitement and enthusiasm to conversations “as they start to realize that there is another way of looking at this world that isn’t just about extraction.”

Some of the climate solutions related to health she points to are movements to source local ingredients and share food, community-supported agriculture in rural areas to help farmers get food to local markets, local community festivals, volunteer-run shops and food banks.

“We have to stop looking at the big things that are scaring us, and start looking at the small things that are saving us,” she said.

“The more local we are, the safer we are. I know that sounds contradictory, but once we’re safe locally, we can begin to make changes and we can move the needle on a bigger scale. We just have to know each other, and have to trust each other.”

— With files from Julia-Simone Rutgers

Updated on April 23, 2026, at 12:20 p.m. ET: This story has been corrected to note that Melanie Hoffman is the former, not current, program manager for Capital Region EcoSchools with the Alberta Council for Environmental Education.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• The federal government is proposing changes to Canada’s access to information regime that could shield some emails and text messages from information requests.
• These sorts of requests have formed the basis of reporting from The Narwhal and other media outlets, and have been used by lawyers, academics and members of the public.
• The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is seeking public feedback on the proposal until June 15.

A secretive bid for Canada’s spy agency to share intel with corporations. A behind-the-scenes lobbying effort to weaken climate rules and fast-track a major oil and gas project. A federal-provincial tug of war over a new highway in Ontario.

These, and many more stories by The Narwhal, were built off government documents retrieved through Canada’s transparency law. For more than 40 years, the Access to Information Act has given journalists, lawyers, academics, activists, businesses and political parties a peek behind the curtain at what the government is doing with tax dollars.

In theory, and sometimes in practice, the law allows for an up-close look at a wide range of government records in a timely manner, usually for just $5, and subject to safeguards like removing personal information, certain legal details and classified materials. But other times, requests can take years to process. The regime has long been accused of being too slow and cumbersome.

In early March, the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney proposed altering the tools the law gives the public to hold Ottawa to account. The government says its proposals, which are not yet enacted or spelled out in legislation, are meant to improve the access regime’s transparency and performance. 

But they’re raising concerns among Canada’s information commissioner as well as a group of public interest advocates, who say the changes would actually erode the right of Canadians to know how and why decisions are being made in their name.

“It’s just an excuse to get rid of where the real records are,” investigative researcher and public access advocate Ken Rubin said in an interview.

The March 5 proposals were made by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the federal department that oversees government management, as part of a regular review of the legislation.

The department is responsible for administering the Access to Information Act, as well as for developing information management policies for the public service. It’s asking for public feedback on its proposals until June 15.

Some emails and text messages could be shielded under Canada’s proposed Access to Information law changes

Chief among the concerns of Rubin and other opponents to the changes is the government’s proposal to redefine what constitutes an official record.

It could mean the public loses access to what the government, in its proposal, calls “routine communications” and other “transitory” documents, or any records the government decides don’t hold any “business value.”

This could include information in any format, including email, texts or instant messages, and crafted at any stage, like duplicates or drafts, according to Treasury Board spokesperson Barb Couperus in an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal.

Information that holds business value is anything that “documents activities and decisions of government,” Couperus said. The government would determine whether a record holds business value by looking at the content, and not the format of the record, she added.

Removing these records from the access to information regime would help the government reduce “processing pressures” and support “more timely responses for Canadians,” Couperus said.

The government believes the massive increase in digital records, from email to instant messages to workspace platforms, requires better management.

Being able to examine federal public servants’ communications, whether or not they are deemed to have documented government decision-making, is key to understanding how Ottawa actually functions, Rubin said. These records can provide a window into the unvarnished, real-time thoughts of officials, he argued, unlike other types of government documents that get sent through rounds of draft approvals and wind up feeling sanitized.

“If you want to know the dynamics of government and what’s happening, [email and texts] is where you turn,” Rubin said. “The nature of the records, which are more electronic, are the real records, because that’s how people make policy nowadays.”

In just one example of an email-based story, The Narwhal reported via an access to information request that a representative of an influential oilsands lobby group reached out directly to senior Canadian public servants, asking to be part of the Canadian delegation to a United Nations climate summit. 

As a result, the emails showed, the government gave the lobbyists a platform on the world stage, where they tried to “change the international narrative” of the oilsands.

There is no obligation under the Access to Information Act to create records, however once a formal request is made to access documents, they cannot be destroyed, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard reminded the ethics committee in a February appearance. 

This includes “transitory” records, she noted, as long as they are related to the access to information request.

The commissioner has the power to order the release of records, after a complaint is filed and determined to be well-founded, and if no other resolution can be reached. However the government has suggested it may “revisit” the commissioner’s powers “to make sure they are working as intended.”

Canada’s access to information commissioner ‘troubled’ by proposal

In a March statement, Maynard said she was “troubled” by government proposals that would “weaken the right of access” including “limiting access to ‘official records.’ ”

She told the committee she agreed there were examples — like an email that just says “thank you” — of “a transitory message that we shouldn’t keep.” But she added that meant it was important for federal departments and agencies to have strong retention policies and to train staff in how they work.

On March 26, Rubin, independent journalist and author Dean Beeby and lawyer and academic Matt Malone, who founded the Investigative Journalism Foundation database Open by Default, sent a letter to the members of the House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee asking them to “urgently begin an examination of model right to information legislation.” The letter was copied to journalists.

The government is proposing “regressive” changes, the group wrote, adding “we fear the end result will not be helpful and your review cannot wait.”

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right of Canadians to access government information as “quasi-constitutional.” In other words, it holds more fundamental value to society than other laws, while still being outside of the constitution itself.

The federal proposals come as some provincial governments make their own changes to information access laws.

The Alberta government under Premier Danielle Smith passed legislation in 2024 that limited the kinds of records it is obliged to release under that province’s freedom of information law.

And in Ontario, Premier Doug Ford’s government has introduced a bill to change the province’s law to block the public from accessing any documents, emails, call logs or other details from the premier and cabinet ministers, as well as their political staff.

Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Patricia Kosseim called those plans “shocking” and said the proposal to block information held by the premier “is about hiding government-related business to evade public accountability.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• The Canada Water Agency will cut about 13 jobs to absorb a $5-million budget cut, as Prime Minister Mark Carney seeks to reduce government spending.
• The agency leads ecosystem restoration and protection work in major freshwater ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and the Mackenzie River.
• A spokesperson said the agency “remains fully committed to delivering on its mandate to improve freshwater management in Canada.”

Internal government emails show staff at the Canada Water Agency trying to make sense of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s budget cuts in response to questions from the media.

The Canada Water Agency launched in October 2024 to help protect Canada’s fresh water, including leading restoration work to clean up the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and other important sources of drinking water. Canada is home to 20 per cent of the world’s fresh water, which is being threatened by climate-driven floods, droughts and algal blooms, as well as industrial contamination and other groundwater stressors.

Carney’s first federal budget proposed $3.8 million in lower spending by 2029-30 at the agency, and a further $1.2 million categorized as a separate “ongoing,” or permanent spending reduction, for a total of $5 million in cuts. They were part of Carney’s $60 billion in proposed cuts — split into $48 billion in spending reductions through 2029-30, and a further $12 billion in “ongoing” cuts with no given end date.

The Narwhal reported on the budget in November, summarizing the government’s proposal as cutting $5 million in total spending at the agency over a number of years. After that story was published, the agency emailed The Narwhal with a request for a “small correction,” asking that figure be changed to $3.8 million.

When The Narwhal asked the agency why it shouldn’t include the $1.2 million in ongoing spending cuts in the figure — which would make it $5 million — internal emails released under Access to Information law show staff reached out to Finance Canada, sharing a screenshot of the budget’s spending review page for the agency with the proposed “ongoing” cut circled in red. 

“Hello Finance Department colleagues, we are fact-checking an article in The Narwhal that mentions the [agency]’s budget cuts, and just want to make sure we are understanding the budget chart correctly,” the agency wrote. 

The water agency asked the Finance Department whether the $5-million figure, which it had already asked The Narwhal for a correction on, was in fact, correct.

After the Finance Department said it would look into the matter, the water agency asked for guidance on how to explain the permanent portion of the spending reductions to journalists.

“Do you have messaging you can share around communicating the ‘ongoing’ to the media?” the staff member asked.

The next day, an official at Finance Canada said the story did not need a correction after all.

Canada Water Agency to cut 13 jobs, but continue restoration and protection of fresh water

Last month, a Canada Water Agency planning document showed how it expected to absorb the first three fiscal years’ worth of cuts, amounting to $2.6 million by 2028-29. One result was the loss of roughly 13 jobs, or what’s known as full-time equivalent positions, from a workforce of 223.

It said it was also planning on “modernizing government operations” and “leveraging new technology” as well as making administrative and support functions more efficient.

At the same time, the agency plans to keep conducting water quality and ecosystem restoration, including in the Great Lakes, it said.

The federal budget says cuts are necessary to “rein in government spending” from pandemic highs. Carney has gone on to trumpet other multibillion-dollar investments in areas like the military, technology and infrastructure that could in turn pose new environmental challenges for water.

Last week, the Canada Water Agency took on a new task when the Carney government promised $3.8 billion to “protect nature” as part of a new environmental strategy. The agency will be working on the country’s first National Water Security Strategy meant to reflect Indigenous knowledge systems including water stewardship.

The Narwhal emailed the Canada Water Agency asking how its spending cuts will affect freshwater stewardship and restoration work.

A spokesperson said the government’s budget cuts would not impact the agency’s “planned activities, staffing and funding commitments for restoration and protection” of its eight freshwater ecosystem initiatives through Canada’s Freshwater Action Plan, a “signature” federal program.

The program includes the Great Lakes, lakes like Simcoe and Winnipeg and rivers like the St. Lawrence in Ontario and Quebec, and the Mackenzie in the Northwest Territories. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s 2023 federal budget allocated $650 million over 10 years to these freshwater initiatives.

“Like all federal organizations, the Canada Water Agency is contributing to the government’s plan to reduce spending, eliminate duplicative programs and focus resources on core priorities,” the spokesperson wrote.

“The agency remains fully committed to delivering on its mandate to improve freshwater management in Canada by providing leadership, effective collaboration federally and improved coordination and collaboration with provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples to proactively address national and regional transboundary freshwater challenges and opportunities.”

The agency also told The Narwhal the reduction in jobs would be staggered, with four next fiscal year, followed by another four the year after and five more after that.

Asked how the agency was planning for the budget’s proposed $1.2 million in permanent cuts, the spokesperson reiterated the budget review was meant to ensure government spending was sustainable and funding cost-effective programs and activities.

Federal funds support water conservation in Ontario and the Great Lakes

The spending reductions come at a time when the Ontario government is amalgamating its watershed protection agencies, called conservation authorities, from 36 to nine, as well as moving to give itself the power to dictate more rules around drinking water. 

Federal funding has been important for conservation authorities because Ontario has not been investing as much in community science and ecosystem restoration, Catherine Febria, the Canada Research Chair in freshwater restoration ecology, said. 

An associate professor at the University of Windsor’s Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, Febria said that the federal “scale of investment is something that the province was never able to do.”

“That was really exciting, it was like a leapfrog in progress with this single initiative, and a number of large-scale projects were invested in [over] the first two years,” she said, naming the freshwater ecosystem initiatives in places like the Great Lakes as one example.

The federal government and Ontario have been working together “for over 50 years” through a series of agreements on protecting and conserving the Great Lakes, the spokesperson for the Canada Water Agency said. 

As one example, the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health lays out how the two will coordinate protection efforts.

“This partnership has led to remarkable improvements, including dramatic reductions in harmful pollutants, and the return of pollution-sensitive species such as bald eagles,” the spokesperson wrote.

Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks did not respond to questions from The Narwhal about how much provincial funding was going towards efforts to restore freshwater ecosystems, and to what extent the ministry was working with the federal water agency.

Febria said given the federal water agency is still relatively new, it’s still not clear what its full mandate will be, not to mention if or how the proposed cuts will impact its work or what exactly may be lost.

She said another Carney initiative, directing $1.7 billion toward a series of scientific initiatives, including research awards attracting high-level talent from abroad, holds promise. Some of the research awards will focus on water security, environment and climate resilience. 

Still, it’s a “tricky balance,” she added, between investing in research and also carrying out on-the-ground work to improve local areas.

“I think we need both,” she said. “When the pendulum swings towards a whole bunch of researchers, that’s great, but at the end of the day, we still need people and organizations and communities on the ground.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• A working group of First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada released an interim report on the cumulative impacts of development in the Ring of Fire.
• Among the participants and collaborators in that report, the Government of Ontario was glaringly absent. The report says the province hasn’t shared valuable data on caribou, polar bears and other regional species that are needed to complete the assessment.
• Ontario NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa said, “By not providing any information or any data to the process, they are essentially muzzling the process itself.”

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Ontario has not been involved in the federal government’s regional assessment of the Ring of Fire, withholding scientific data and funding needed to understand the impact of mining development, even as the province ushers it through. 

The province is absent in the regional assessment working group’s interim report, released Feb. 23. In multiple instances, the group, made up of representatives from 15 First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, makes clear Ontario has yet to sign on. 

There is still an “opportunity for collaboration with the province of Ontario in the regional assessment,” the group wrote in the report. The group said it’s preparing what “specific information” it will need to request from the province.

Ontario’s absence is notable as the Doug Ford government continues to push through development in the Ring of Fire, an environmentally sensitive area of boreal forest and peatlands in the James Bay Lowlands, known as Bakitanaamowin Aki, which means “the Breathing Lands,” and Mammamattawa, or “many rivers coming together,” by the First Nations that call it home.

“If they really, really cared about [the assessment], they would work with the federal government,” Ontario NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa, who represents the Ring of Fire region, told The Narwhal. “By not providing any information or any data to the process, they are essentially muzzling the process itself.”

A spokesperson for the federal Impact Assessment Agency confirmed to The Narwhal that the working group understands “several areas it must assess are within provincial expertise.” It will “request information from Ontario as needed” in addition to consulting publicly available data, the spokesperson added.

The Ontario government is hoping the region will be the centre of new mining activity. During a press conference with Prime Minister Mark Carney in December, Premier Ford said Ontario is on track to get “shovels in the ground this June” to build a road to the remote region.

But the regional assessment has also been in the works for at least seven years. Aroland First Nation and environmental groups asked for a federal regional assessment in 2019.

The Ontario government has signed deals with three First Nations along the proposed roads to the Ring of Fire, even as other local communities urge the government to pause and properly address environmental protections and long-standing issues on the ground, such as boil-water advisories, health care and housing.

The interim regional assessment report reiterates some of these concerns, recommending the existing conditions for First Nations in northern Ontario be “thoroughly examined” and for “immediate interventions” to be made, even as mining and development are greenlit. 

“There are a lot of things happening in these First Nations and their territories that both Canada and Ontario need to address,” Mamakwa said. 

“Before the conversation turns to mining, conditions need to be properly assessed and improved.” 

The working group’s plan, updated in November, shows it has already built an information sharing platform, held technical sessions, developed community-led studies and begun to evaluate cumulative impacts of development in the Ring of Fire.

It’s now seeing through evaluations and studies and continuing to engage with communities to eventually compile a final report, which the group expects to land around June 2027. 

Whether or not Ontario will come to the table for the next phase is not yet clear.

“I think [the Ford government] is not happy with the federal assessment,” Mamakwa said. “The process itself, I think, they don’t want to be part of. And they just want to do their own thing.”

Ontario’s participation was ‘TBD’ — now it’s non-existent

Last January, when the working group finalized its terms of reference, it described an “outer ring” of contributors, such as experts and industry representatives and listed Ontario as one of these — but with “TBD,” or to be determined, attached to its name. 

The latest report suggests Ontario is not participating despite having a trove of scientific information readily available about the region. 

While 22 federal departments and agencies show up on a list of respondents to the working group’s public call for information and data, no provincial ministries are listed.

Even Wyloo Metals, the company behind the Eagle’s Nest mine, currently in the exploration phase in the Ring of Fire, contributed to technical sessions of the regional assessment, according to the report.

All of this is raising questions about whether the Ford government is preventing Ontario public servants from participating in the regional assessment. 

Without Ontario at the table for the regional assessment, “staff obviously won’t be given the mandate to participate,” Kerrie Blaise, the founder of the non-profit Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence, told The Narwhal. 

“One hundred per cent, there would be staffers who would have knowledge and things to contribute. Without the direction to do so, they’re barred from doing so.”

In an interview at Queen’s Park on March 23, The Narwhal asked Ontario Environment Minister Todd McCarthy about the province’s lack of involvement in the regional assessment. He said he’d look into the matter.

McCarthy also told The Narwhal the province is “co-operating” with the federal government, citing a Dec. 18 agreement between the two levels to streamline the environmental assessment process. 

In that agreement, Ontario promised to lead any assessments for projects that are subject to both federal and provincial jurisdiction. But this deal covers single projects, whereas the Ring of Fire regional assessment isn’t examining a project, instead looking at cumulative effects of development in the region.

McCarthy said Ontario’s absence from the interim regional assessment report was “an exception.” 

“I suspect that Ontario is part of that conversation, and will be part of the conversation and will continue to co-operate and lead in terms of sharing data … to get all of it done,” he said.

“If the sense is that we’re not there at the moment, as I speak to you, we’re going to be there as we are all the time in terms of co-operating and leading.” 

The Narwhal sent specific questions to Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as the premier’s office, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and First Nations Economic Reconciliation, about the government’s direction to public servants and financial willingness to support First Nation participation in the federal assessment. None responded to those emails by publication time.

Ontario is withholding scientific data on the Ring of Fire from the regional assessment

Within its interim report, the assessment group wrote that “several priorities for the regional assessment would benefit from provincial expertise.”

There are hints of what kind of expertise the group is hoping to get, in a submission by Environment and Climate Change Canada filed in January in response to one of the group’s requests for information.

In a question about Indigenous consent for non-Indigenous uses of land, the Environment Department pointed out that most traditional territories in Ontario are on non-federal lands, and the province is responsible for hunting and fishing regulations there.

The department also pointed out how the province has been monitoring boreal caribou and undertaking research to fill gaps in knowledge about the animal, and that the province holds valuable data such as aerial surveys on polar bears in the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation. 

Ontario also hosts the Natural Heritage Information Centre, which has historical data and continues to track biodiversity in the Ring of Fire region, the federal Environment Department noted, and directed questions about the centre to the provincial government.

“There are certain things the federal government cannot touch,” Blaise said. “So even if there’s a comment deadline, and people bring up concerns, if it’s not all within federal jurisdiction, you’re not going to have those players at the table to actually respond to those information gaps and requests.”

Without Ontario’s participation, the working group will be forced to go to the province to request information. That could result in more delays and extra costs, Blaise said.

When the Government of Alberta successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act at the Supreme Court of Canada, the judges emphasized in the 2023 ruling that “respect for the division of powers” between the federal and provincial governments helps put in place strong environmental protection laws and “facilitates co-operation between the two levels of government.”

Here, “we’re not getting that co-operation,” Blaise said. “So it means you’re inherently getting a narrower process, a process that doesn’t actually have all the requisite knowledge and expertise and government officials at the table.” 

Blaise also said Ontario’s lack of participation could translate to a lack of provincial support for whatever the working group ends up recommending.

First Nations need more funding to participate in the regional assessment from ‘other parties.’ Ontario did not respond to the call

The interim report highlights how many First Nations in the Ring of Fire area lack basic necessities, like clean water, health care, housing, education and electricity. First Nations can’t be “true partners in equitable decision-making processes” like the regional assessment, the group wrote, without these “necessities of life.” 

The report recommended that the existing conditions of First Nations in northern Ontario be “thoroughly examined” and that “immediate interventions” be made.

Community members also have to “constantly balance their roles,” the report stated, with responding to emergencies, dealing with other federal and provincial negotiations, staying involved in legal actions, responding to regulatory processes like permit applications and answering outside requests from industry.

All of this points to a need for more funding to help “address the participation gaps within the regional assessment process,” the group wrote.

While First Nations have worked with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on a funding strategy, and receive “base funding” to support their participation, the group said the amounts involved are “often largely insufficient.”

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada’s departmental plan for 2026-27 shows it’s planning for $34,206,000 in cumulative spending cuts through 2029, but it’s unclear whether or how those cuts will impact its work on the Ring of Fire regional assessment.

The working group noted the effort involved in trying to apply to other federal funding programs, or nailing down private funds, is “prohibitive.” The group recommended that the federal government “and other parties” help the First Nations get enough funding so that they’re not burdened with trying to find the money themselves. 

“The provincial government cannot claim to move the Ring of Fire forward ethically or equitably while withholding information or funding for this process,” Mamakwa said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• Canada is looking for buyers of its fossil fuels, from bitumen to LNG, amid a global energy glut.
• The European Union has an objective of becoming the “world’s first climate-neutral continent” by 2050 and gets 70 per cent of its electricity from renewable energy or nuclear power.
• The federal government has gone back and forth over the years on whether to build export terminals on Canada’s East Coast to carry fossil fuels to Europe.

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Europe will give priority to clean energy sources and expects to continue to rely heavily on renewables and nuclear power, says a high-level European Union diplomat.

Belén Martínez Carbonell, secretary-general of the European External Action Service, the European Union’s diplomatic corps, made the remarks at a Feb. 27 press conference in response to a question from The Narwhal about whether Europe wants Canada’s oil and gas. She was in Ottawa as part of a visit to discuss a number of urgent foreign policy and defence priorities with senior Canadian government officials.

Her comments come as the world faces a global energy glut in fossil fuels, leading to questions — and challenges — for Canadian suppliers, including in oil-rich Alberta. The province just last week unveiled a budget showing depressed oil prices had led to a $7.5-billion decrease in royalties from the oilsands. But U.S. strikes on Iran in recent days, and retaliatory strikes throughout the region, have already impacted the global oil market and could send prices soaring.

Globally, the signals are mixed when it comes to prospects for Canadian fossil fuels. Canada’s trade relationship with the U.S., its biggest trade partner, has been fraught with uncertainty since the election of President Donald Trump. That uncertainty has led to increased interest in Canadian energy from China. The Indian government has also signalled it is eager to import Canadian oil and gas products, according to remarks by the Indian high commissioner, made as Prime Minister Mark Carney embarks on a visit to that country.

Meanwhile, Europe began importing higher volumes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. At the time, Europe moved to shut down Russian gas imports and phase out Russian oil. But relying on fossil fuels like methane-heavy LNG complicates the European Union’s objective of becoming the “world’s first climate-neutral continent” by 2050. That means Europe isn’t exactly rushing to buy Canadian oil and gas.

“Generally speaking, our policy is to give priority to clean energy sources, because we are on target to comply with our 2050 targets,” Martínez Carbonell said.

“More than 70 per cent of our electricity comes from clean renewables or nuclear, particularly small nuclear reactors. That’s the way forward. Simple.”

Talks ongoing on whether Canada’s carbon pricing can help avoid European tariffs on steel and more

This January, Europe enacted its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which implements a tariff on imports of carbon-intensive goods like steel and cement.

The mechanism raises the question of whether Canada’s own carbon pricing regime — which Carney has tinkered with, by first killing the consumer-facing carbon tax and then signing a deal with Alberta to allow more flexibility with its own — will be strong enough to keep up robust trade with Europe. 

European diplomats say the two jurisdictions are holding many conversations on the topic, including between Carney and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, on how Europe can take Canada’s carbon pricing into account.

“This is, I would say, a question that comes up again and again, and there are some discussions to take that into consideration, to adjust the price,” said European Union Ambassador to Canada Geneviève Tuts, sitting beside Martínez Carbonell.

“We will not abandon the [tariffs] — but the price might be adjusted depending on what is done already in the country.”

Canada’s evolving energy relationship with Europe

The European Union and Canada are part of a “High-Level Energy Dialogue,” collaborating on things like developing a hydrogen supply chain, tackling methane emissions and developing nuclear power. 

But the question of where Canada’s fossil fuels fit into the relationship has at times been a tricky one to answer.

Thirteen years ago, for example, the government under former prime minister Steven Harper was ultimately successful in opposing a push from Europe to discourage sales of fuel made from oilsands bitumen.

Crude oil from the oilsands is heavy and thick with sulphur. It requires extra steps in the upgrading and refining process compared to some other crudes to turn it into petroleum products like gasoline, which led some environmental organizations at the time to label it “dirty oil.”

More recently, oil and gas lobbyists in Canada argued after the Russian invasion of Ukraine that providing more fossil fuels to Europe would help support allies and displace foreign and hostile energy sources.

Months later, then-prime minister Justin Trudeau poured cold water on the idea during a meeting with his German counterpart in Montreal, when he said “there has never been a strong business case” to build LNG export terminals on Canada’s East Coast to ship more gas to Europe.

Under Carney, the message has changed again. On a trip to Berlin last year, Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson said Germany does, in fact, want to buy Canada’s LNG. Canada announced in August it would “begin discussions regarding the supply of LNG to German buyers.”

Hodgson has also said Canada wants to diversify its gas sales away from the United States, and the European Union’s energy commissioner has been open to that idea.

Europe’s reliance on fossil fuels for electricity is already dropping and that’s the ‘way to go’: secretary-general

Martínez Carbonell noted Europe’s decoupling from Russia has meant a change in the energy mix from many countries, including the U.S. 

But she said the moving toward non-emitting electricity generation is “the way to go … continuing relying on renewables, diversifying energy imports when it comes to LNG, while bringing down to zero the energy exposure to Russia.”

At the same time, it’s unclear what kind of long-term demand Europe will have for oil and gas. Currently, the global explosion of LNG terminals is leading to a worldwide glut of natural gas.

Meanwhile, European Union statistics show electricity generated from fossil fuels decreased by 7.2 per cent in 2024 compared with the previous year and oil and petroleum products saw a 1.2 per cent drop in supply.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Summary

• Despite the Government of Canada’s requirement for provinces and territories to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2030, Saskatchewan is refurbishing its coal plants.
• Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin has the power to intervene and stop Saskatchewan’s pursuit of coal, but her office would not confirm if she’ll do that.
• Many have argued there are cleaner and more economical options than emissions-heavy coal for generating electricity.

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin will work with Saskatchewan to “ensure” it follows the law, her office reiterated, as the province pushes to keep its coal plants open past Canada’s deadline. But when asked if she would intervene to stop the province’s continued reliance on coal-fired electricity, Dabrusin’s office was mum.

Saskatchewan’s decision to extend the life of its coal plants has put it on a collision course with federal rules to phase them out nationwide by Dec. 31, 2029. The province said last year it will spend $900 million refurbishing its coal plants for “years to come.” As of Feb. 26, the provincial Crown corporation SaskPower reported it was relying on 76 per cent fossil fuels for its electricity supply — 28 per cent coal and 48 per cent natural gas.

Canada wants to phase out coal plants, which burn thermal coal to generate electricity, because they’re the highest-emitting sources of carbon pollution and air pollutants in the country. Not only do they emit carbon dioxide, which is driving climate change, they can also emit nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury, which are all on Canada’s toxic substances list and have been linked with respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and acid rain. Ontario’s decision to decommission coal plants followed findings that this pollution was costing the province’s health care system $1 billion per year.

But Saskatchewan Crown Investments Corporation Minister Jeremy Harrison has said the province will “not comply” with federal Clean Electricity Regulations, which were finalized in December 2024 and put limits on emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation starting in 2035. Harrison has said they would create a financial burden on the province and lead to job losses. Both the regulations to phase out coal power and to limit power plant emissions are part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which regulates toxic substances and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Dabrusin, as the minister responsible for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, has the power to intervene when a party is about to violate the law or its regulations.

She can seek an injunction, for example, to prevent a violation, and if a government agency is ignoring an injunction, she can seek a court order to comply or a contempt of court ruling, among other options.

The Narwhal asked the minister’s office on Feb. 20 if she plans on using the powers of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to intervene and ensure either or both of the two regulations are followed.

Dabrusin’s press secretary Keean Nembhard pointed to a statement from the minister posted on the social network X six months earlier, which said phasing out coal was essential for cutting emissions, protecting clean air, supporting public health and meeting climate commitments. 

The post reiterated that federal regulations “require the phaseout of all unabated coal-fired power plants by December 31, 2029.” Unabated means emissions that are released into the atmosphere without any technology like carbon capture.

“We will continue to work with provinces and territories to ensure that all legal requirements and climate commitments are met, while supporting a reliable and affordable transition to clean energy,” the minister stated.

Nembhard also sent a statement to The Narwhal featuring the same quotes.

The federal and Saskatchewan governments signed a deal in 2024 that lets the province temporarily avoid the coal phase-out rules, but it expires at the end of this year.

It says Saskatchewan agreed to have a generating capacity made up of at least 30 per cent non-emitting electricity sources by the end of 2024, 34 per cent by 2027 and 40 per cent by 2030. According to SaskPower figures from June 2025, it appears to have met the 2027 target for total capacity, but how much those different sources contribute to the grid fluctuates regularly.

Saskatchewan Environmental Society will be ‘encouraging’ Dabrusin to intervene

Canada and the United Kingdom co-launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance in 2017 with the goal of phasing out coal power worldwide. At the United Nations climate summit in November 2025, Dabrusin said the “coal-to-clean transition is inevitable.”

In January, a Saskatchewan court dismissed a citizen-led legal challenge against the coal-power extension plan, saying it was a matter of government policy.

The applicants — Citizens for Public Justice, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and three individuals — have filed a notice of appeal. They say the province’s decision, which could see its coal plants still active into the 2040s, violates federal law and was made without sufficient public consultation. 

“We’re going to be encouraging the federal minister to consider getting involved in objecting to the Government of Saskatchewan’s decision to keep its coal-fired power plants running,” Peter Prebble, a member of the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, said in an interview.

“It would be helpful if the federal minister actually intervened and said to Saskatchewan, ‘You can’t do this,’ because she does have that authority.”

Saskatchewan law claims province has ‘autonomy’ over carbon pollution controls

The Saskatchewan legislature passed the Saskatchewan First Act in 2023, which claims the province has “autonomy” over several areas including electricity generation, and any conditions affecting it, such as environmental standards and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The province established a tribunal under that law to examine the federal clean electricity rules. That tribunal produced a report claiming the rules would be a massive financial burden. 

Saskatchewan’s Harrison then used the tribunal’s findings to claim the federal rules were “unconstitutional,” “unaffordable” and “unachievable” and to declare that the province “will not comply with them.”

In 2025, he wrote a letter to SaskPower saying the Government of Saskatchewan had made the decision to extend the life of its coal power plants as a “bridge” to building a new fleet of nuclear power plants. 

“The certainty and security of coal means that it will continue as a pillar of our electrical generation system as we bridge to a nuclear future powered by Saskatchewan uranium,” Harrison wrote in the letter.

That nuclear future will not come until the mid-2030s, and perhaps later. The Crown corporation is planning for a small modular reactor to be built around that time. It also announced in January it was just beginning another process to evaluate large nuclear plants, which take longer to build.

The Narwhal reached out to Harrison’s office and SaskPower but did not receive a response by publication time.

The many alternatives to continuing to rely on coal

Prebble argued there are better and cheaper alternatives to extending the life of coal power. The province could upgrade its grid connections with Manitoba to import more hydropower, generated from dams on the province’s rivers, he said, or invest in electricity efficiency and conservation. He also advocates for boosting renewable capacity in Saskatchewan.

“We’ve got the best solar resource in the country, and we’re barely using it. Less than one per cent of our electricity is coming from solar,” he said. 

“We’ve got an incredible wind resource. Energy storage technologies are improving. There’s lots of potential for co-generation of electricity,” he added. “There were lots of other options.”

The Canada Energy Regulator estimates southern Saskatchewan has some of the highest solar photovoltaic potential in Canada as well as some of the highest wind energy potential.

Prebble also noted the United Nations has asked developed countries to phase out coal power by 2030 and developing countries to follow suit in 2040.

“It’s pretty incredible that a wealthy jurisdiction like Saskatchewan would say that it’s going to keep running its plants, knowing all the dangerous consequences that are associated with climate change,” he said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Mushkegowuk Council is hoping new recommendations to “immediately” enact environmental monitoring in the Ring of Fire will see the light of day — even though construction on access roads is planned to begin in four months.

Lawrence Martin, the council’s director of lands and resources and a former Grand Chief, spoke to The Narwhal about a federal document released in January, part of a regional assessment of the consequences of industrial activity in the Ring of Fire. Mushkegowuk Council supported the creation of the document, which was co-written by 15 First Nations and a federal agency, and also included recommendations to help communities “urgently” access health care.

The Ontario government is hoping the environmentally sensitive Ring of Fire region that overlaps Indigenous ancestral homeland can be the centre of a burst of new mining activity. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has already said the province is on track to get “shovels in the ground this June.”

“Hopefully these regional assessment recommendations will actually happen,” Martin said. “I think it’s one of those situations where the train has already left the platform. … The project’s already started and these regional assessments, whatever they may be at this point, may not carry much weight.”

The portion of the assessment released was an executive summary, recommending that community-driven environmental monitoring should begin “before any development occurs.” It also highlights serious funding and capacity gaps in health care in the Far North, particularly mental health, and said this should be addressed “urgently, before any additional development can be considered.”

Ford has claimed that developing the region would create jobs and boost the economy, which he’s portrayed as a necessary counterweight to United States tariffs. According to the province, construction is set to begin on what will eventually be three new access roads to the Ring of Fire. 

The roads were proposed by two Indigenous communities, Marten Falls First Nation and Webequie First Nation, which are also members of the group behind the report. The remote communities want to secure all-season access to Ontario’s highway network to drive down their cost of living. The roads will serve a dual purpose, as they will also provide a pathway for Ring of Fire mining development. 

Martin told The Narwhal that Mushkegowuk communities want to see the all-season roads too, and he understands their potential to be environmentally disruptive, but he said the First Nations involved have assured the council they’re also concerned about the environment and are taking the issue seriously.

“We have to trust that our own people are very concerned, and they’ll do their best to protect these waters that flow down to our James Bay communities, and will protect the animals that live in those areas that migrate through there,” he said. “So, it’s a game of trust.”

Ford has already signed agreements with both First Nations to speed up the road building and provide them money to build community infrastructure, Martin noted. 

The provincial government has also passed laws meant to speed up development, and signed a deal with Ottawa handing the province more control over the environmental assessment process. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said mining critical minerals is also a federal priority to grow Canada’s clean technology and defence industries.

It’s unclear what kind of efforts are being made to get environmental monitoring in place before June. Greg Rickford, the provincial minister responsible for Ring of Fire partnerships, did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin’s press secretary Keean Nembhard said Ottawa recognizes the need for meaningful participation with Indigenous Peoples throughout the full Impact Assessment Act process “to promote responsible and inclusive resource development.”

The report, he wrote in emailed comments, represents “strong progress toward developing final recommendations that will ultimately promote responsible resource development in the region, which has First Nations consent and active participation.”

‘Too little’ known about Ring of Fire’s environmental conditions: report

The regional assessment will examine what kind of big-picture, long-term impacts might occur if several mines, roads and other projects in the Ring of Fire are built. These cumulative effects could be related to the environment, health, culture, social or economic conditions or Indigenous Rights. 

Ford has claimed the Ring of Fire area contains a “vast” reserve of critical minerals such as chromite and nickel that are needed for solar panels, batteries and weapons among other things.

But January’s report said too little was known about past and present environmental conditions in the Ring of Fire. It said “previous and ongoing” programs were “sparse, short-term and underfunded” and based on Western science, not Indigenous Knowledge, and that scientific data must be paired with expertise from Elders and others.

Access to health care and social services are also “profoundly inadequate,” the working group found. It wrote that “travel to obtain health care is a major barrier to well-being,” and First Nations need Elder-guided ceremonies and cultural practices to heal.

“We’re all suffering from the same symptoms of colonization and the same symptoms of being an isolated community with all of those conditions within,” Martin said.

The group itself has faced difficulty being able to move forward on its study, it noted, due to emergency conditions faced by several First Nations in northern Ontario including evacuations due to wildfire and a lack of clean drinking water.

The document warned “the bulk of the work lies ahead.” It said while discussions over the last year involved all First Nations at “key times,” not all of them were able to contribute equally because some were facing serious conditions.

The regional assessment working group’s terms of reference were finalized last year following criticism that the previous approach had tokenized Indigenous participation. Their study is supposed to continue until mid-2027. 

An “important next step,” the group added, was coming together “in unity” to map out community values, like a “shared understanding of First Nations’ relationship with the land and what must be preserved and protected.” That will help target possible impacts on Treaty Rights, it said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In 2006, scientists descended upon a remote open-pit mine in Australia to study air that turns into rock.

Like many mines, after churning through rock to get at a mineral, the Mount Keith nickel mine was left with piles of waste rock, which it held in huge, exposed reservoirs called tailings. This waste rock, however, was reacting with carbon dioxide in the air to form new minerals. It was effectively pulling the carbon out of the air and embedding it within the rocks, a kind of natural version of carbon capture and storage.

The scientists wanted to investigate exactly how much, and how quickly, this natural phenomenon was leading to carbon being captured and mineralized at the mine. Pinpointing this, they figured, would provide insight into how mines with similar tailings could offset their greenhouse gas emissions.

They took more than 800 samples of the mine waste to test and study and discovered something intriguing: the majority of the carbon was being pulled out of the air at Mount Keith by one mineral. Brucite is a waxy, pearly crystal that’s often a dull yellow or blue. It is highly reactive with carbon dioxide, and leveraging that reactivity could boost carbon storage at the mine many times over, the researchers found.

“As we studied the site and became more aware of the presence of brucite, I think then we understood that, ‘Oh yeah, brucite was really doing a lot of the work,’ ” said Ian Power, one of the scientists who travelled to Australia to study the mine, and now the Canada Research Chair in Environmental Geoscience and an assistant professor at Trent University. 

Brucite is now a key part of the carbon storage aspirations of a proposed nickel and cobalt mine near Timmins, Ont. Critical minerals, including copper, nickel and lithium, are essential components in renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. They’re also used in a wide variety of other products, from phones to laptops to weapons.

The proponent of the Timmins mine, Canada Nickel Company Inc., says its Crawford Nickel-Cobalt Sulphide Project will be “Canada’s largest nickel mine.” The project, expected to last 41 years, involves an open pit and stockpile areas, two ore processing plants, a new rail line and relocating a portion of a provincial highway and existing power line.

The project’s greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime are detailed in a report for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. Before enacting any net-zero plans, the mine was expected to emit roughly 15,200 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about as much as 3.5 million gas-powered cars driven over a year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculator (Natural Resources Canada’s calculator was not functioning at the time of publication).

The company expects to lower those emissions considerably by, for example, electrifying parts of its operation. All told, its net-zero plans could reduce emissions to 154 kilotonnes per year by the year 2030, it said.

But Crawford Nickel will also be capable of storing more than a megatonne of carbon dioxide per year, amounting to 54 megatonnes over the life of the project, the company said — and it will be relying on brucite in its tailings to do the heavy lifting. 

The company expects to start construction on the mine this year after it secures its remaining federal and provincial permits. It says it has moved its carbon storage technology along to the point where it’s filing for patents. 

Beyond its own operations, it plans to source carbon from industrial emitters in the region, although the details of how this will work are still unclear. Questions also remain about whether the technology will work as advertised and the mine’s overall environmental impact.

The little mineral that could

Taking advantage of brucite — as well as other minerals that aren’t quite as efficient — to store carbon is a different technique for “carbon capture and storage” than the one that gets the lion’s share of attention.

The technique the fossil fuel industry has used for years involves taking a stream of carbon dioxide gas and injecting it deep underground into porous rock formations. Traditionally this has been used to loosen up remaining oil reserves and extract more oil, but more recently, and in smaller amounts, it has been used to store that carbon underground.

The problem with mineralization, as Canada Nickel plans to use, has been that the natural process of carbon turning into a solid can take thousands of years under normal conditions. 

Artificially speeding it up has been a scientific pursuit for years at places like the University of British Columbia, where Power worked with other trailblazers in the field. A study he authored in 2020, for example, showed how carbon storage could be accelerated at a nickel deposit northwest of Prince George, B.C., by bubbling carbon dioxide and other gases through a powdered mixture containing brucite.

Sourcing the rock from mine tailings is part of the appeal, Power said, because the rock has already been pulverized from ore processing. That exposes much more surface area to carbon dioxide for chemical reactions. Bubbling the gas through brucite also helps the process.

“We were kind of at the forefront of the field, and then [there was] a lot of research, field studies, experiments,” Power said. “And then people at this stage now are thinking, ‘Okay, how can we get to commercialization?’ ”

Canada’s environmental regulations and subsidies for green technology development from government and other private sources could be prodding companies to take carbon storage more seriously, he said.

One of the leaders of the field is Greg Dipple, who worked at the University of British Columbia on carbon mineralization for two decades before retiring and co-founding Vancouver-based company Arca, which calls itself an “industrial mineralization company.” 

Dipple told The Narwhal he was familiar with Canada Nickel but had not had a chance to work with it yet. Arca’s technology involves capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, he said, rather than from direct sources like Canada Nickel is planning.

“To meet the world’s climate targets, no one company or pathway can do it alone,” Dipple said. “We look forward to Canada Nickel’s success in their carbon removal plans.”

How Canada Nickel plans to store carbon at its Crawford mine

The sites studied by Power, Dipple and others involve magnesium-rich rock, often home to nickel and chromium, and where brucite is also often found. The Crawford mine has this type of rock, and is targeting nickel, chromium, cobalt and other mineral deposits for extraction. 

To make use of the carbon-hungry mineral, and expedite its reaction with carbon dioxide, the company plans to run its tailings through a series of tanks as a final step at its ore-processing plant, said Pierre-Philippe Dupont, vice-president of sustainability at Canada Nickel, in an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal.

Inside the tanks, the carbon dioxide will be “bubbled and stirred into the tailings for several hours,” Dupont said. By using “high strength” carbon dioxide streams and controlling for “certain conditions,” he said, the company expects to “fully utilize the brucite in the tailings” to store more carbon.

It will be the first time the technology is being realized at the scale of a full commercial mine.

In its Impact Assessment Agency submission, the company described its mineralization process as being “at the research stage.” 

Asked by The Narwhal to describe its readiness today, the company pointed to several announcements it has made since 2023 showing the technology advancing through testing and pilot projects, to filing for a patent. 

“While [the technology] has not yet been implemented at full commercial production scale, these disclosures show that the technology has progressed … and is being actively advanced toward commercialization as part of broader carbon management efforts,” Dupont said by email.

Capturing public funds for carbon capture

Both Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford have a lot riding on the mine’s success.

It’s the first project in Canada to get named to both the federal Major Projects Office and the provincial “One Project, One Process” list. Both the federal office and the provincial process are meant to make project approvals happen faster and smoother.

In press releases, both governments touted the Crawford Nickel project as “low-carbon” and both linked its production to “batteries and green steel.” Both also cited research showing its projected emissions would be “90 per cent below the global average.” Both governments have also made millions of dollars available for the project to happen. For example, federal dollars have funded its mineralization technology as well as its electrification plans.

In a January 2026 investor presentation, the company acknowledged it’s drawing on between US$100 and US$300 million of government funding, including support from federal and provincial critical minerals funds. It also has US$500 million in long-term debt financing through the Crown corporation Export Development Canada.

It’s also banking on US$600 million it expects to receive from two Canadian federal tax credits, one for carbon capture and the other for clean technology manufacturing.

“While Crawford could move forward without government support, our project economics includes eligibility for existing federal and provincial programs, including investment tax credits, as well as other forms of government support available to strategically significant critical minerals projects,” Canada Nickel CEO Mark Selby told The Narwhal in an emailed response to questions.

Bringing additional carbon to Crawford Nickel mine could involve a pipeline, or rail

As part of its carbon capture plans, Canada Nickel wants the region around Timmins to become a “low-carbon or potentially zero-carbon industrial cluster.” 

The company has proposed a scheme where the emissions of potential future nickel processing and stainless steel facilities in the region would be transported to the Crawford mine for carbon mineralization. 

Its subsidiary, NetZero Metals, is “advancing plans” for those facilities, Selby told The Narwhal. But he acknowledged there are no detailed plans yet for how it would transport the emissions.

The company has had “discussions” with “potential suppliers” of emissions, which have considered both the idea of constructing a carbon dioxide pipeline in the Timmins region as well as using rail transport, Selby said. 

Whether a pipeline or rail, or another solution is pursued, there would need to be “further engineering work, regulatory frameworks and project approvals” first, Selby said.

Meanwhile, the company’s priority is to reduce its own expected emissions first by electrifying operations and sourcing green energy.

Building a mine creates emissions, through wetland and forest destruction

The mine’s footprint, too, could itself create carbon emissions. Northern Ontario is home to the boreal forest and a vast peatland, which is a net absorber of carbon dioxide and also acts like a filter for clean water, keeping flooding and drought in check and supporting wildlife and biodiversity.

Peatlands are under threat in Canada from industrial uses like forestry, mining and agriculture — all of which can disturb the sequestered carbon, releasing it into the atmosphere. The Wildlife Conservation Society Canada has warned some peatlands overlie major mineral deposits, including Crawford. 

The company’s Impact Assessment Agency of Canada submission calculated the total forgone carbon sequestration over the project’s life was estimated at roughly seven million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

At the same time, the proposed mine is situated in an area that’s already partially disturbed and near roads — unlike the proposed mining developments in the so-called Ring of Fire farther north, which would involve pushing deep into undisturbed peatland to build new mining sites, and building new roads to access them. 

“It’s not in the Hudson Bay Lowlands, for example, where there are billions of tons of carbon stored in peatlands,” Adam Kirkwood, a research associate for forests, peatlands and climate change at Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, said in an interview.

“My perspective is, it’s still in the boreal forest, where we do have quite a few peatlands as well.” 

Kirkwood said the area around Timmins is a “mosaic” of forests, lakes and wetlands that may turn into peatlands in the future. He said there was an opportunity for the company to try to minimize its impact so peatland, which takes thousands of years to form, is left undisturbed.

Canada Nickel says the mine’s footprint was assessed federally and, where there are areas that overlap with wetlands and peatland, “these features have been identified and assessed as part of the environmental effects evaluation.”

“Where impacts are unavoidable, we have proposed mitigation, monitoring and compensation measures consistent with regulatory requirements and the commitments made through the Impact Assessment process,” Dupont said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Again and again last year, Canadian oil and gas executives and lobby groups made public overtures to Prime Minister Mark Carney to “unwind the past decade” of environmental and energy policy in order to “unlock” fossil fuel industry growth.

After eight months in office, the Carney government has signalled major policy changes through its Building Canada Act, its Major Projects Office, its federal budget and its pipeline-focused memorandum of understanding with Alberta. All of this brings federal policy at least partially in line with the list of proposals made by these industry representatives. 

One fossil fuel company spokesperson told The Narwhal they’re “pleased to see the progress that has been made.”

“These are all steps in the right direction of building a stronger Canadian economy and an acknowledgement of the critical importance of energy and energy infrastructure to our country’s competitiveness and future,” Gina Sutherland, senior advisor, corporate communications and media relations for Calgary-based Enbridge, wrote in an email response.

The pipeline and utility company’s president and CEO, Greg Ebel, is an original signatory to the industry’s vision, laid out in March in an open letter titled “Build Canada Now.” Updated versions were published in April and September as more executives and lobby groups signed on and the group sharpened its requests.

Eight of the executives who signed the September letter, largely representing companies in the oilsands, had also planned to attend a meeting with Carney on June 1, 2025, to discuss “partnerships,” according to an internal government list of confirmed participants released to The Narwhal through access to information law. Government officials suggested that during his opening remarks, Carney could relay his “intention to use the letter to guide the discussion and delve into the positions they put forward,” according to briefing notes for the prime minister for that day.

The government says its policy changes are part of a broader plan to fight climate change, support workers and boost economic growth, especially in the face of the United States throwing around tariffs and threatening worse. 

Canadians expect their government to “win” the trade war, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson said Dec. 9 on Parliament Hill. “To do that, we need cards in our hands. We have some fantastic cards: our energy and natural resources.”

Which might be true. It’s also true that the fossil fuel industry appears to have been very successful at arguing its case, with its wish list ticked off one by one.

Emilia Belliveau, energy transition program manager at advocacy organization Environmental Defence, has researched the fossil fuel industry’s techniques for garnering public support.

“We’re seeing an incredible alignment of government interests and fossil fuel industry interests,” she said in an interview.

Where Canada and the oil and gas industry align

The September version of “Build Canada Now” boasts 95 signatories including major lobby groups like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. In that version, the group called for a federal law that bans crude oil tankers from the north coast of British Columbia to be completely repealed.

That would set up a major confrontation with Coastal First Nations, whose president Marilyn Slett made it clear to Carney on Jan. 13 at a meeting in Prince Rupert, B.C., that the oil tanker moratorium must be kept in place. 

The Carney government has not repealed the tanker ban, but its memorandum of understanding with Alberta commits to changing the ban if necessary to get a new pipeline built.

Another law the industry executives wanted to see vanish is the federal carbon pricing regime. While it is still in place, the federal government released a “climate competitiveness strategy” in November that commits to negotiating new carbon pricing arrangements with the provinces. The deal it signed with Alberta also permits the province significant flexibility over how its carbon rules are applied to specific sectors like oil and gas and electricity.

The executives also asked for an overhaul of a federal law that governs environmental assessments, and the Building Canada Act strips out part of that assessment process for projects the government deems in the “national interest.” 

They wanted to kill off a proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, and the Alberta deal says Canada is happy with other plans to reduce emissions and won’t implement it. 

A central goal of the government’s Major Projects Office is to shrink approval timelines for projects — another item on the wish list.

Finally, the industry representatives asked for more loan guarantees for Indigenous communities. A loan guarantee is when the government agrees to repay any debt taken on by Indigenous communities that buy ownership stakes in oil and gas projects, should they be unable to repay it themselves. 

Making it financially easier for Indigenous communities to own portions of oil and gas projects is seen as addressing historic financial barriers to Indigenous economic participation — but it can also be seen as useful for overcoming opposition to fossil fuel expansion.

The federal budget reiterates a commitment to doubling its Indigenous loan guarantee program, and directs the Major Projects Office to help with financing.

The executives wrote in the Build Canada Now letter that they have “consistently advocated for the changes required to unwind the past decade of increasing policy complexity and uncertainty that led to delayed investments, lost opportunities and a competitive disadvantage on the global energy stage.”

Federal disclosure records show industry lobbyists focused on at least two aspects of the letter, carbon pricing and the emissions cap, as well as other elements of the federal climate plan during the two months surrounding the executives’ June 1 meeting with Carney.

Sutherland, at Enbridge, said the government’s proposed policy changes will now need to be “fully implemented” for large energy projects to move forward.

The Narwhal reached out to several other signatories of the Build Canada Now letter, including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Pathways Alliance of oilsands companies, but none responded by publication time.

Joe Calnan, vice-president of energy and Calgary operations at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, noted many of the industry’s proposals had been floated at one time or another, in particular by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith — like killing the tanker ban, altering carbon pricing and overhauling the environmental assessment law. Alberta’s oil and gas industry accounts for 84 per cent of total Canadian oil production.

Smith’s pressure on these issues “did kind of make these kinds of demands from industry more tangible and more clear as to what they’re after,” Calnan said. 

Large, publicly traded corporations also have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make money, Calnan added, and so their interests lie in ensuring increased production of oil and gas. A province like Alberta, which takes in royalties when resources are developed, also has an interest in increasing fossil fuel production.

The government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau had portrayed many of the policies changed by Carney as necessary to deliver crucial carbon pollution cuts, and to properly consider the impact of oil and gas projects on the environment, Indigenous Peoples’ constitutional rights and the long-term well-being of Canadians, whose lives are continually disrupted by wildfires, floods and other extreme weather made worse by climate change. The emissions cap, for example, was supposed to hold the industry at its word to take steps to decarbonize its production.

In November, former Trudeau-era environment minister Steven Guilbeault quit his Cabinet post following the Alberta deal’s unveiling, saying several elements of the climate plan he had worked on “have been, or are about to be, dismantled.” 

Belliveau, at Environmental Defence, said it was frustrating to watch Carney and Smith discuss a “grand bargain” over oil and gas development that purported to also plan for emissions reductions, given that similar rhetoric had been deployed seven years ago when Trudeau framed the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline as a “trade-off” for getting Alberta to sign on to climate action. 

“The last so-called grand bargain failed to produce the results that it promised, and the result that we need to actually address climate change,” Belliveau said. “Prime Minister Carney should be learning from past Liberal government mistakes.”

Pitfalls of Canada’s past climate policies

The latest government progress report on Canada’s climate plan shows the country is “significantly off track” to meeting its emissions reduction target for 2030 and 2035, according to the Canadian Climate Institute.

Carney’s environmental policy changes were also unveiled during a year when Canada faced its second-worst wildfire season, second-worst year for ice loss and major heat waves, the severity and frequency of all of which are tied to climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, of which the global oil and gas industry is the largest contributor.

Belliveau said the government should be doing more to help people cut emissions — and, over time, their bills — by providing subsidies and access for clean technologies like heat pumps, instead of doubling down on fossil fuels.

The Narwhal asked the office of Hodgson, the energy minister, about how closely the government’s policies align with the requests in the letter from oil and gas executives, and whether the changes were made to fulfill those requests. The Narwhal also asked whether the government agreed with the assertion in the Build Canada Now letter about the need to “unwind the past decade.” 

Hodgson’s office directed questions to Environment and Climate Change Canada Minister Julie Dabrusin. Her press secretary Keean Nembhard said the government is committed to working with Alberta and is relying on industrial carbon pricing to cut pollution going forward. He acknowledged the “economies of tomorrow” will be “clean, low-carbon and resilient” and that “Canada can — and must — lead the way” in addressing climate change. 

“We’re creating the conditions for world-leading clean technology to thrive — by investing in Canadian innovation, scaling homegrown solutions and positioning Canadian companies to lead in the global race to net-zero,” he said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.