Steven Guilbeault has had enough. 

Yesterday, the former Liberal environment minister announced his plan to resign his seat this summer after seven years in government. 

It wasn’t a surprise. Rumours of Guilbeault’s resignation began almost as soon as Mark Carney won the Liberal leadership — and immediately killed the consumer carbon price. It’s seemed inevitable since November, when Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith formally announced they were trying for a new pipeline and Guilbeault left cabinet. Now, some seven months later, Guilbeault is resigning altogether, with a letter including a long list of killed or threatened climate policies. 

His exit marks the end of an era for Canadian environmental aspirations. It’s a sign that big government promises to protect the planet are no longer being made, let alone fulfilled — but not that the battle is over.

Turning Guilbeault from a grassroots activist into a politician was a Liberal score back in 2019. The Justin Trudeau government was taking heat for buying the Trans Mountain pipeline, and Guilbeault was a Quebecois environmental hero who had spent years at Greenpeace before co-founding Équiterre. As Guilbeault recalled during his House of Commons farewell, it was hard to believe such a fierce fossil fuel foe would be happy in the most mainstream of parties.

Guilbeault and Trudeau agreed to disagree on Trans Mountain, and to work together on emissions reduction and environmental protections everywhere else. At the time, The Narwhal called him a “radical pragmatist” having a go at changing the system from the inside. He had some success and said, “I’m not angry,” as he walked down Parliament Hill yesterday. Still, it’s been clear for a while that he gave up more idealism than he intended.

Another Canadian voice for the environment also just decided that — to paraphrase feminist philosopher Audre Lorde — the master’s tools will never reduce the master’s emissions. On May 21, the activist group Investors for Paris Compliance announced it was winding down, after five years testing “whether investor pressure could meaningfully enforce corporate net-zero commitments” in Canada. 

The group’s sincere, nerdy goal was to use financial levers to influence banks, insurers and fossil fuel companies to pursue emissions reduction. It argued companies were failing clients by not accurately disclosing the risks climate change posed to their investments. Using tactics like shareholder proposals, regulatory complaints and old-fashioned engagement, the group encouraged its targets to make those risks public, then work to minimize them.

The pitch was that reducing greenhouse gases in order to limit global warming and its exacerbation of extreme weather events would protect not just people and the planet, but profits.

The sad takeaway is, as Investors for Paris Compliance said this week, “This approach only works at the margins.” It also had wins, including a $20-billion commitment made by National Bank to finance renewables projects. The immensity of the climate crisis means such small victories aren’t enough. 

“Investor accountability, in the absence of regulatory change or legal consequences, is not sufficient to deliver net-zero outcomes or to manage climate risk at the system level,” its final report concluded. 

But Guilbeault’s departure shows tougher regulation or enforcement aren’t just unlikely in Canada right now — they’re off the table. Prime Minister Carney’s words might say he’s “moving forward on climate action,” but his actual actions include weakening environmental assessment laws to pave the way for souped-up resource extraction. 

The landscape looks bleak for those dreaming of systemic emissions reductions efforts in Canada, but Guilbeault says he’s not done with his life’s environmental work. And whether he’s into it or not, Carney’s environmental efforts can’t be over, either.

Guilbeault wasn’t alone in criticism of Carney’s climate policy

Criticism of Carney’s approach to environmental policy is easy to find. Indigenous leaders were vocally opposed to fast-tracking legislation from the get-go. Last month, 14 Liberals sent a letter to the prime minister stating they were “deeply concerned” that pursuing a pipeline to appease Alberta means “the government’s credibility will be seriously compromised.”

Investors for Paris Compliance called Carney out, too. Its sunsetting report invoked his dramatic 2015 speech as Bank of England head, the one where he labelled markets’ short-term focus a “tragedy of the horizon” that failed to properly consider the long-term financial risks posed by climate-fuelled disasters.

For over a decade, this was hailed as a succinct and clear-eyed take, palatable to both people that love coldwater salmon and people that love cold, hard cash. It became a tent pole for the motley coalition that awarded Carney with Canada’s highest elected office after his very first political race. Now, many who put their faith in the money guy promising both climate action and profit are accusing him of dumping his Values the first time he hit a resource extraction road block.

A more generous reading is that Carney also attempted to save the planet from inside the system. When that didn’t go as planned, he found himself out of ideas. Before reading the Investors for Paris Compliance report I had already forgotten about Carney’s pre-politics pet project, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a brief romance between the global banking system and efforts to slow global warming that kicked off in 2021.

At the time, Carney was UN Special Envoy for Climate, as well as head of “transition investing” at Brookfield. His star power helped grow the alliance to more than 120 banks. It was a hopeful time. It also met immediate, organized resistance. In the U.S., the activist investors recount, “Republican Attorneys General threatened members of the alliance with ‘collusion,’ complete with boycott lists for bidding on state business.” 

Membership plummeted after the 2024 U.S. election, including the January 2025 exodus of Canada’s five biggest banks. Last August, the alliance “paused” its activities. Within months, Carney was a pipeline guy. Unlike, say, Audre Lorde, he hasn’t shown the grit for genuine struggle. 

This bird’s eye perspective puts Canada’s environmental regression in context. Our fast-tracking, dealmaking and Treaty Rights-ignoring is part of a global backslide of climate policy and environmental action. And these violations of our right to clean air, water, land and food are part of a bigger wave of official and unofficial violations of human rights.

We are at the crest of a backlash, one crashing toward a literally scorched earth. 

During Guilbeault’s goodbye, both supporters and detractors recalled his 30-year environmental career, including his youthful radicalism. A Bloc MP reminisced about his 2001 unfurling of the Greenpeace banner after a renegade CN Tower climb, before calling him the “best, most ambitious environment minister this country had ever known.” A Conservative MP invoked his 2002 arrest for scaling the Alberta premier’s house to install solar panels, before denouncing policies Guilbeault supported. 

The CPC MP’s list included criticism for Carney for the policies still standing. At least one — the carbon price for industry — is already endangered by Carney and Smith’s dealmaking. The others, including the oil tanker ban in coastal B.C. waters and the limits on single-use plastics, are clearly in the crosshairs of the industries in question, as well as those who want their donations and votes. 

For Carney, realizing the strength of the forces aligned against systemic change has led him to abandon efforts to bank environmental cred, lest someone lose actual money. But he’s not Canada’s CEO, he’s the prime minister and that’s a more complicated job — abdicating his climate responsibilities is not acceptable. 

After a wave crashes, the ocean rises again. While the most pragmatic radicals are abandoning money guy visions for the environment, the soon-to-be-former Montreal MP and Investors for Paris Compliance also promised to keep swimming. After “a little break,” the investor activists aim to come back with “accountability mechanisms that match the scale of the challenge.” Reading between the syllables, that sounds a little spicy. 

As for Guilbeault, “I will continue my battle for a greener, safer planet — outside of this House, but I will continue,” he said yesterday. 

It’s one thing to put down the master’s tools and another to leave the master’s house. Neither is a promise to stop trying to dismantle it.

— With files from Carl Meyer

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

• With the climate changing and energy demands increasing, many cities set out energy efficiency and other green requirements for new builds.
• Across Ontario, cities have also created grants and other programs to help home and business owners retrofit older buildings with things like heat pumps or insulation.
• The Ford government’s Bill 98 will prevent municipalities from requiring new builds to be green, meaning a whole new generation of buildings could be added to the retrofit backlog.

Over the past decade, Ontario municipalities — and the taxpayers who foot their bills — have spent tens of millions of dollars retrofitting buildings to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

Local governments across southern Ontario have given homeowners grants to transition houses away from natural gas, protect them from extreme temperatures and safeguard their basements from flooding. Businesses have used such funds to cut office energy consumption, reduce the risk of birds crashing into their windows and increase access to nature around their buildings. 

For cities, the idea was simple: fortify structures built before the climate emergency and create rules that ensure new development is prepared for it to worsen. 

At the local level, there’s been broad demand for the initiatives, and positive outcomes as a result. 

In Kingston, Ont., one homeowner lowered the annual emissions of their 1,500-square-foot semi-detached house by 91 per cent by replacing windows, installing a heat pump and insulating the attic, basement and exterior walls. And that translates directly to lower energy bills.

In Toronto, more than 4,000 development projects have met the city’s green standards, which have been in place since 2010. These rules mandate that each building has shared outdoor spaces that aren’t covered by concrete or asphalt, but permeable coverings that absorb stormwater to prevent flooding, among other eco-friendly features. 

Yet despite the climate imperative and public interest, the ability of cities to incentivize greener builds like these is about to get a lot more complicated — and costly in the long run.

Earlier this month, the Doug Ford government introduced new legislation that would block municipalities from taking action to ensure future development is sustainable. The government’s Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, prevents Ontario cities from requiring developers to include electric-vehicle parking spots or bird-friendly windows, among other things. If the majority Progressive Conservative government passes this bill, local governments won’t even be able to require trees on residential properties.

The Narwhal spoke to four officials who serve in the planning or environment departments of Ontario cities, all of whom asked for confidentiality as they weren’t authorized to speak on the issue. All four said their teams are still analyzing the impacts of Bill 98 to properly respond to the government’s proposal, but that ultimately, they expect local budgets to absorb the likely higher — and unavoidable — costs of deep retrofits. 

“Anything that we require as a standard to protect the environment or reduce emissions through the planning process, we could no longer do if this bill passes as is — including requiring developers to make sure there’s a tree in every yard,” one rural Ontario official said in an interview. “That essentially means that we can’t hold developers accountable, and we’ll have to spend money ourselves to fix what they don’t do. So brace for impact, I guess.” 

Municipal green standards developed in place of scant provincial requirements for building efficiency

For more than a decade, green standards were adopted in either mandatory or voluntary forms by Ontario cities including Toronto, Mississauga, Halton Hills, Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill. 

Cities across Durham Region, including Whitby, Ajax and Pickering, for example, have standards for private development that promote green roofs, urban forest protection, stormwater management, renewable energy systems and green spaces. These have been implemented as Durham as a whole develops a green development program for new builds, in an effort to have 100 per cent of new housing achieve net-zero emissions by 2030. 

These cities introduced their standards in part because the provincial building code hasn’t been updated since 2017 and makes no mention of eco-friendly features. It came under scrutiny from the provincial auditor general in 2020 for not being strong enough to substantively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Buildings are the source of 24 per cent of Ontario’s emissions, mainly from the use of fossil fuels like natural gas for heating. And these emissions are likely to increase as the province encourages faster construction to support a rapidly growing population, without requiring energy efficiency. 

If Bill 98 passes, developers would only be held to that now decade-old rulebook on building standards. Municipalities would be thwarted in their efforts to keep new building emissions down. The province recognized this in its own analysis of the changes, stating that ending green standards will result in not just “shifting burden from the development sector to municipalities for sustainability measures” but “unintended environmental impacts.”

“Unfortunately, right now, the only way that municipalities can really afford to build those kinds of infrastructure projects is by borrowing money, incurring debt and then paying it over time … or through development charges,” Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti said last week, explaining why he opposed the bill’s provisions on green standards. 

“We do not have to turn our back on environmental standards,” Scarpitti said. “The environmental standards can actually be set, and then those projects will meet them.” 

Cities have already been trying to soften the blow of energy efficiency costs on developers. Local green standards are often tied with financial incentives to urge developers to make the shift to greener construction. In 2021, the City of Kingston created a program that offers property tax rebates to builders and private developers who voluntarily construct buildings that strive for net-zero emissions. 

Toronto’s green standards offer a partial refund on development charges for buildings that meet their rules. The more rules a building meets, the higher the refund. Since its inception, this scheme has delivered almost $120 million in refunds to developers.

The success of these programs has inspired other Ontario municipalities to begin working on their own green standards. That includes Hamilton, Ottawa, Waterloo Region, Guelph, Clarington and Oshawa. But their efforts have been paused since Bill 98 was proposed, because it makes building green more complicated.

Ottawa officials, for example, have noted the bill would prevent municipalities from even asking developers to include electric-vehicle spaces in their buildings, even though a process for putting them in place has already been developed.

In an April 8 memorandum, Marcia Wallace, general manager of planning, development and building services for the City of Ottawa, said staff would explore “enabling approaches” like partnerships with the private sector and financial incentives. It did not note whether those incentives could come from taxpayers’ dollars.

Axing green standards means Ontario municipalities have to spend more taxpayer money on building retrofits 

It’s difficult to quantify the cost of building sustainably from the get-go, which depends on size, location and other factors. One study from The Atmospheric Fund in 2012 and another from City of Toronto staff in 2017 suggest the cost of construction would increase by two to four per cent, depending on the building type and community. 

What’s more certain is that retrofitting existing buildings to both lower emissions and withstand some of the symptoms of climate change is a lot more expensive than building green from the start. One Canadian green homebuilder says retrofits can be 50 per cent more expensive. A 2023 study by United Way Greater Toronto estimates a deep energy retrofit of an existing apartment building in Toronto would cost $200,000 per unit.

And all of that is cheaper than leaving homeowners to rebuild after severe flooding. Flood insurance premiums in Ontario have jumped up to 26 per cent in the last two years, according to a new report by a Canadian real estate firm and insurance-rate aggregator.

Many Ontario municipalities are already spending millions to retrofit public buildings and incentivize companies and homeowners to do the same. Now, rather than being able to shrink that budget over time as modern buildings are made more resilient, cities are looking at an exponential growth in cost. 

Guelph and Kingston, for example, have robust home retrofit programs that have been financed to the tune of millions of dollars with support from the federal government. Residents have been eager to take them up on it. 

In April 2022, Kingston’s local retrofit program had to be paused due to “overwhelming interest” resulting in a lengthy waitlist. As of October 2024, it had supported 250 projects. These programs, and several others aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions, fall under the city’s climate leadership division, which in 2025 had a budget of more than $800,000. That works out to $11 on the average tax bill, according to the budget. For a city of 130,000 people, with a limited tax base, that investment is paying off. 

In Guelph, 637 households have registered for this kind of funding and 448 have either completed their retrofits or are currently doing so.  

In Durham Region, more than 1,600 residents have signed up to lower energy consumption and reduce emissions. By 2023, almost 200 retrofits had been completed. In 2024, the region expanded the program to include commercial buildings. 

One Greater Toronto Area official said they expect demand for retrofits to increase if Bill 98 passes: “If there’s no way for us to ensure development is done according to the needs of the climate emergency, I imagine we’ll have more buildings to retrofit than we can handle in the very near future.”

The costs of doing so will ultimately be borne by taxpayers, especially as the province is still in the process of amending its own building code to acknowledge the realities of how climate change will affect buildings across Ontario.

“The building code will be updated. We’re going to go through it section by section,” Ontario Housing Minister Rob Flack told The Narwhal last week. “With respect to green standards, we’ve asked various stakeholders to be part of the process. … They’ll be involved in the process of redefining the building code.”

When pressed on the timeline of this process, Flack said, “ASAP.”

“We’ve started the process of getting people in place,” he said. “It’s going to take a while. It’s a big document.” 

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

• British Columbia is home to the country’s longest-standing Indigenous Guardian program, the Haida Gwaii Watchmen, founded in 1982, and the province leads leads the way for national investment.
• Indigenous Guardian programs support conservation targets, create jobs in rural areas and have a high return on investment. 
• While programs across the country are seeing budgets slashed, Indigenous Guardians received an unexpected $230M investment by the federal government in March — but questions remain.

Ida Peter knew she had to apply to protect mule deer populations in Tsal’alh traditional territory, located in B.C.’s Central Interior, when B.C. first announced $8.9 million for Indigenous Guardians programs in 2023. 

“We have a really big concern about [them] in our territory because traditionally we’re known as the deer people,” Peter said. 

“I would say in the last 50 years the population of deer has declined drastically. Where we used to see hundreds of deer, now we’re lucky to see in those same areas maybe 10 or 20,” she said.

Mule deer are a significant species of concern in the Southern Interior region of the province, which means they are at risk of being endangered because of wildfires, resource extraction and human development.

Peter is an elected councillor in her nation, and manages the culture and heritage department. The Tsal’alh Guardians were born out of Peter’s proposal and are a small but mighty team of three who steward the territory.

It’s one of over 240 Indigenous Guardian initiatives that have been implemented across the country with the support of federal funding: an initial investment of $25 million to pilot Indigenous Guardians programs in 2018-2022 which was bolstered by an additional $100 million announced in 2021. But with both B.C. and federal guardian funding streams set to expire in 2026, Indigenous Guardians across the country were bracing for major cuts. 

That was until an announcement on Mar. 31. 

To the surprise of many First Nations, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government committed an additional $230 million into Indigenous Guardian programming, including for the creation of a new Arctic Indigenous Guardians Program. 

Though the announcement was welcomed by Indigenous communities, many are still wondering when those funds will begin flowing — and who will benefit from them.

Funding will be administered over the next five years, Emily Jackson from Environment and Climate Change Canada confirmed in an email to the Narwhal.

“Information on Indigenous priorities, including initiatives, eligibility, and timelines, will be shared as it becomes available.”

The Indigenous Guardian movement has deep roots in B.C.

Indigenous Guardians in British Columbia have led the way, implementing the longest-standing program in the country, which has been in operation since 1982: the Haida Gwaii Watchmen, established by volunteers.

Before B.C. or Canada began investing in these programs, Haida people took it upon themselves to steward their homelands. The goal was to preserve Gwaii Haanas village sites, according to the nation’s website. 

“It was very common for looters to come to these sites and take artifacts that were very important to the living culture of the Haida Nation, the work done by these volunteers was incredibly important in preserving the village sites that are now protected,” it reads.

Now the Watchmen are funded by Parks Canada, one of four programs the department is supporting across Canada, with three of those programs based in B.C. The province is also home to the highest number of guardian programs funded last year.  

According to an economic analysis from Makeway, a national charity that supports conservation, and the CoEvaluation Lab, a Canadian organization that provides reporting and research support, Indigenous Guardian programs put between $1.43 to $5.37 back into the economy for every dollar invested. 

Another analysis by Social Ventures Australia, which examined a different selection of Indigenous Guardian programs in Canada, had similar findings. For every dollar invested, approximately $2.50 was generated for stakeholders. 

Those returns on investment come from employment outcomes, improved health and wellness, increased tax revenues and benefits to the environment.

For Dallas Smith, president of Nanwakolas Council, the thinking behind the programs has evolved.

“First it was about having eyes, ears and boots on the ground out there. But as we’ve started trying to build a conservation economy in the Great Bear Rainforest, we realized that there were other returns to be made, not only in helping us balance our conservation vision, but also [to] build sustainable economic development visions,” he told The Narwhal.

The council supports six member nations on B.C.’s South Coast and Vancouver Island in negotiations with government and industry. 

“Having the guardians in place whether we protect something or develop something has been monumental,” Smith said. 

While the $230 million announcement came as a welcome surprise, with no clear guidelines about where the funding is going, and with B.C.’s funding still set to expire, staff at some programs are concerned.

“Some [guardian programs] have models that have trust funds … where we’re able to back the guardian program up with some foundational funding that we’re able to live off the interest of,” Smith said. 

“For some of the other guardian programs that are in development … I bet there’s definitely some concern out there about where the next set of funding comes from to get through the next season.” 

Meanwhile, the federal government and various provinces, including B.C. and Ontario, passed bills that faced First Nation opposition last year, among them Bills 14 and 15 in B.C., Bill 5 in Ontario and federal Bill C-5, all of which critics have said privilege industry over Indigenous rights and consultation.

Long term funded is needed to sustain programs

Indigenous Guardians protect the land and natural resources across Canada, maintaining the ecosystem for everyone, while contributing to local economies, businesses and relationships that allow industry into Indigenous territory. 

“The people of this territory would like to see the environment better protected for future generations, so that in generations to come, they’re able to go out and harvest berries and get the meat and fish they need,” Peter said. 

In her nation, interest in becoming a guardian is growing, with renewed funding needed to continue the program. 

“Long-term funding makes it all happen. It takes away the anxiety of chasing grant after grant … being able to secure long term stable funding gives you the ability to plan around it and invest in it,” Smith said. 

Funding gaps, even temporary ones, could undermine the investment and benefits in guardian programs.

And while loss of employment is a huge harm, disruptions in Indigenous Guardian funding can have deadly consequences for the environment.

For example, programs like the Wuikinuxv Guardian Watchmen monitor coastal waters for spills, mitigating risk from industry and acting as a first responder for the environment. 

“Too many people want First Nations to either protect everything or develop everything, they don’t understand the balance we’re trying to reach. The guardians are a living example of creating balance,” said Smith.

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

• B.C. Premier David Eby has backed off on permanent changes to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, following backlash from First Nations leaders. 
• Instead, he’s proposing to suspend parts of the Declaration Act for up to three years while the province appeals a court decision.
• The government says the recent court ruling makes changes to the Act urgent, but critics warn they could weaken legal accountability.

After a virtual meeting with First Nations leaders, B.C. Premier David Eby says his government is abandoning its plan to permanently change parts of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act — at least for now.

“We heard loud and clear that this approach was totally unacceptable to First Nations leaders, that it reflected government unilaterally drafting changes to a law that we had worked on together to write, and they felt the process was rushed and that the entirety of that approach was wrong,” Eby told reporters at the legislature on April 2.

In lieu of the amendments he’s been vowing to make for months, the premier is now proposing to suspend parts of the Declaration Act for up to three years while the province appeals a December 2025 decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal.

In its December ruling, the court agreed with the Gitxaała and the Ehattesaht First Nations, which argued the government’s obligations under the Declaration Act — to align provincial laws with the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — are legally enforceable.

Eby’s proposal would block further court challenges of provincial laws on the grounds that they do not align with the Declaration Act — a move the premier said is critical.

“We have seen court filings now and court decisions that rely on that Court of Appeal decision and the volume of litigation that we face is not sustainable,” he told reporters. “We have to fix it. It is non-negotiable. We have to fix it.”

The premier positioned his new proposal as less definitive and less permanent than the prior amendments, but admitted his latest pitch is not particularly palatable to the First Nations leaders he met with.

“I recognize that Indigenous leadership wants no pause on these sections,” Eby said. “They want no amendments, [but] we have to do something. A pause is, in my opinion, hopefully the least invasive way of addressing government’s concern.”

First Nations leaders will have an opportunity to provide the government with feedback on the new proposal — feedback Eby promised “will be taken seriously” — but the Declaration Act will be modified in some way before the legislature rises for its summer break at the end of May.

Eby confirmed his government intends to draft legislation to suspend parts of the Declaration Act and the Interpretation Act in the coming weeks, introduce it in the legislature and pass it by May 28. And he’s willing to put the future of his government in the balance to get it done.

“This will be a confidence vote,” Eby said. If the majority of MLAs vote against the legislation, the NDP government will have lost the confidence of the house, likely triggering a snap election and possibly Eby’s resignation. Former BC Liberal premier Christy Clark lost a confidence vote in June 2017, resulting in the NDP and Green Party forming government.

Eby believes he will not meet the same fate.

“We have a strong and united caucus. All of our MLAs understand the seriousness and importance of our work and partnership with Indigenous people and our commitment to all British Columbians to grow the economy and ensure prosperity for British Columbians.”

Eby’s new proposal would not affect the Declaration Act action plan — a road map for the work the province has committed to undertake with First Nations through 2027 — or the sections of the law that allow joint decision-making agreements with First Nations, according to a spokesperson from the premier’s office.

‘It got inconvenient’ 

The Declaration Act changes have drawn a lot of interest at a time when high-profile court decisions have thrust Indigenous Rights and Aboriginal Title into the public spotlight. 

Prior to Eby’s announcement on April 2, The Narwhal spoke to Adam Olsen, former MLA and lead negotiator for Tsartlip First Nation, lawyer Cynthia Callison and Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law and a member of the Gitxaała Nation’s legal team.

In November 2019, Olsen was one of 87 elected officials to vote in favour of passing the Declaration Act. The law’s unanimous passage was hailed as a major accomplishment.

At the time, the government described the act as “a path forward” for relations between First Nations and the province, and a way to avoid long and costly court battles. Now, the province is readying amendments to the Declaration Act, aimed at barring courts from interpreting or applying the law. 

“It kind of breaks my heart that in 2019 we get unanimous support in the legislature to move this forward,” Olsen, a former member of the BC Green Party, said in an interview. A member of Tsartlip First Nation, Olsen represented Saanich North and the Islands from 2017 until 2024 before exiting provincial politics. “Now, the same government a couple of years later is going to use the slimmest of majorities — if they can even muster it — to basically amend [the law] because it got inconvenient.” 

The legislation that was once celebrated as a major step toward working with First Nations in a better, more equal way has been recast as a destabilizing or even destructive force. Repeal or revise — those seem to be the only two options B.C.’s elected leaders can envision for the Declaration Act. 

“It’s frustrating, sad and angering that our government would set up a binary like that,” Olsen said.

Olsen, who did not seek re-election in the October 2024 provincial election, is now the lead negotiator for Tsartlip First Nation. As a participant in the confidential consultations, he could not discuss any details about the ongoing process but did reflect on the political climate in which the Declaration Act amendments have been proposed.

“This past year for Indigenous relations has been awful. It’s been awful on social media. It’s been awful to hear how the official opposition has handled this,” said Olsen, referring to the BC Conservative Party’s vocal desire to repeal the law altogether.

There were no BC Conservative MLAs in the legislature when the Declaration Act passed in 2019, though MLAs who now represent the party did vote in favour of the law at the time. Former BC Conservative leader John Rustad — who once served as B.C.’s Minister of Aboriginal Affairs — began calling for the Declaration Act’s repeal during his 2024 election campaign. Rustad was ousted as party leader in December and the BC Conservatives are now in the midst of a leadership race to replace him.

The BC Conservatives still support repealing the Declaration Act, interim party leader Trevor Halford told reporters at the legislature on April 1. The legislation, he added, has failed to deliver the stability and reconciliation progress it was intended to deliver.

“As difficult a conversation as that is, I think it’s worth having,” Halford said. “I think that a full repeal actually gives certainty. I do believe that.”

Olsen feels the conversation about Indigenous Rights has shifted so far from where it was in 2019 — when all MLAs voted in support of the Declaration Act.

Public support for the application of the Declaration Act has dropped in recent months, according to a new poll released by Angus Reid. In August, 44 per cent of British Columbians polled felt B.C.’s effort to align its laws with the United Nations declaration had gone “too far in limiting provincial authority over land and resources.” As of this month, 53 per cent of respondents said they think the province’s approach on reconciliation and Indigenous Rights has gone too far.

Clogg believes Eby’s comments about the need to change the Declaration Act have contributed to the decline in public support for reconciliation.

“We need leadership from the highest levels and from all sectors of society to face down racist, populist sentiment and chart a course towards true reconciliation,” she said.

Declaration Act amendments happening quickly

The fact that the government is prioritizing making these changes quickly — by legislative standards — is a further complication. The Declaration Act essentially enshrines the federal United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, or UNDRIP, in B.C. law. That includes Article 19, which states Indigenous Peoples have the right to be consulted and to give free, prior and informed consent on legislation that impacts them.

One thing the ongoing consultations have made clear, Olsen said, is that many First Nations do not want the act changed.

“The ones that have spoken publicly have said that they oppose amendments to the act,” he said.

The government’s proposed changes to the Declaration Act will “prevent significant litigation risk for the province of British Columbia,” Eby said in the legislature on March 30. Some First Nations leaders and Indigenous law experts disagree, warning that the tight timeline the government is pursuing to change the act could actually spark more lawsuits.

“I hope that B.C. appreciates that the highly abridged timelines and their intransigence in the face of opposition from civil society groups and First Nations makes them vulnerable to legal challenge should they proceed on the originally proposed timeline,” Clogg said.

Eby admitted that consultations with First Nations are being “rushed,” but maintained the province has no other option.

“We are having to move quickly to make amendments in order to address some serious legal liabilities that were created … through the court decision,” he told reporters. “Nobody is excited about this process. Certainly I’m not, and First Nations leadership are not.” 

The condensed consultation timeline and vocal opposition from First Nations should give lawmakers “extreme caution” about the quality of the process for changing the law — or risk ending up right back in court, Olsen argued.

“If they’re going to table a bill, they need to be very comfortable that their consultation record is impeccable,” he said.

Proposed amendments would block First Nations from defending their rights in court, legal expert says

Non-disclosure agreements notwithstanding, the Canadian Press reported on some of the government’s proposed changes to the Declaration Act last week. 

According to the Canadian Press, leaked documents included a change in the wording of the Declaration Act, narrowing the government’s commitment to take “all measures” to ensure provincial laws align with the United Nations declaration. The amended law would task the government only with aligning laws deemed to be a priority, the Canadian Press reported.

For Cynthia Callison, a partner with Callison & Hanna Law who has advocated for First Nations in B.C. for 29 years, the proposed changes reported last week do not seem to materially change the province’s approach to implementing the Declaration Act to date.

“They have not been working on aligning all laws, they have been working on priorities,” Callison, who was appointed King’s Counsel by the province in January, told The Narwhal in an interview. King’s Counsel designations recognize lawyers for their expertise and significant contributions to the judicial system.

Those priorities outlined in the action plan include self-government and anti-racism initiatives, changes to family services and emergency management programs and pathways for joint decision-making on resource management.

The proposed amendments leaked to the Canadian Press indicate to Clogg that the government is moving toward doing exactly what Eby said it would do in December: block the courts from being able to hold the government to account when First Nations take issue with its progress on reconciliation.

“The amendments that are proposed are designed to deny First Nations access to the courts to defend their Indigenous human rights,” she said, adding these amendments are “essentially an effort to avoid that accountability.”

The recent court cases that the premier has taken issue with — specifically the Cowichan Tribes ruling and the Gitxaała decision — were “never a priority for the province and are not part of their action plan,” Callison added. 

Canadian Press also reported the government is planning to add language to the Declaration Act to allow the province to make changes to the action plan, potentially without the support of First Nations. That could make the action plan more vulnerable to political whims, Callison said.

B.C. government is once again pushing legislation over the objections of First Nations

This isn’t the first time Eby’s government has side-stepped its consultation obligations to First Nations.

In May 2025, Bill 15, which granted cabinet broad powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, prompted vocal opposition from many, including Don Tom, Chief of the Tsartlip First Nation and vice-president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Eby has acknowledged his government failed to meet the consultation standard set in the Declaration Act at times but insisted his government was not backsliding on its commitments to reconciliation and Indigenous Rights.

Now, the province is once again pushing legislation that has drawn strong criticism from First Nations leaders. 

“This is two spring sessions in a row where First Nations leaders are in the spotlight, not for any of their own doings, but because of what the provincial government is up to,” Olsen said. “When Premier Eby says, ‘We are really keen on reconciliation and it’s still a top priority’ — well, the behavior seems to be quite confrontational with First Nations, rather than relational.”

Clogg was more blunt.

“There is nothing about the way B.C. is approaching this that remotely could be called cooperation or co-development,” she said. “It’s an entirely unilaterally driven, expedited process.”

Despite the mounting objections from First Nations leaders, Eby confirmed on April 1, the amendments will be introduced in the coming weeks.

“The amendments will be introduced with lots of time for debate and discussion in the legislature,” he said.

Olsen warned the premier’s plan to push ahead with the controversial amendments to the Declaration Act could land his government in a quagmire.

“The premier has backed himself into a corner. Now he’s making quicksand.”

Updated April. 13, 2026, at 11:07 a.m. PT: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated former BC Liberal premier Christy Clark lost a confidence vote in June 2017, resulting in the election that brought the NDP to power. In fact, there was no second election. Clark tried unsuccessfully to convince the lieutenant governor to allow one, but former NDP leader John Horgan secured a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Green Party and formed government.

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 January, Todd Stone, the president and chief executive officer of the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia, told the crowd assembled for the association’s conference about a lobby meeting he had with Premier David Eby. Stone joked that he opened by congratulating the premier on his “success on 30-by-30.” 

The crowd began to chuckle as he continued his story about provincial and national targets for protecting 30 per cent of land and water by 2030.

“You’ve actually accomplished 47 by 2025,” he recalled telling the premier. He then recounted asking: “Can we start having a conversation about pulling some land back?”

That figure comes from a policy paper published in December 2025 by the association, arguing “up to 46.99 per cent” of British Columbia was protected land. That’s far more than the federal government’s figure of 19.9 per cent, and would surpass the province’s 30-by-30 pledge. 

According to Stone, a former minister under the B.C. Liberals, the comments led to the premier directing “the staff at the [Water, Lands and Resource Stewardship Ministry] to go back and look at all their numbers and sit down with us.”

According to public records, the association lobbied at least a dozen members of B.C.’s NDP government in late 2025 to press their argument. Those include the speaker, the minister of forests, the minister of labour, the minister of energy and climate solutions, the minister of mining and critical minerals and Randene Neill, the minister of water, lands and resource stewardship.

On Dec. 2, 2025, Minister Neill poured cold water on the lobbying effort.

“It is inaccurate to suggest these areas are currently fully protected when they are not,” she said. A section of the statement attributed to the ministry went on to add that many of the so-called protected areas cited in the association’s policy paper “do not restrict all resource activities that can negatively affect biodiversity.”

Torrance Coste, associate director at the Wilderness Committee, remembers seeing Minister Neill’s statement shared on an email list used by the province’s conservation groups. He described it as “encouraging” at the time. But Stone’s comments, and more recent statements by the ministry, have him worried.

According to a statement emailed to The Narwhal, the Ministry of Water, Lands, and Resource Stewardship said it is “developing an updated approach” to tracking the province’s progress towards the 30-by-30 conservation goal and appreciated the association’s “feedback as we proceed through this work.”

“This work includes a review of all existing areas within B.C. that have conservation measures in place or have restrictions on resource activity,” the ministry explained. 

To complete that review, they added they are working with “other resource sector ministries, including Forests, Mining and Critical Minerals, and Energy and Climate Solutions” as well as “industry and environmental non-governmental organizations.”

Coste thinks this could be a sign that the ministry is considering adopting some of the Association for Mineral Exploration’s definitions for protected lands. Something he describes “a naked attempt to lobby against the expansion of protected areas committed to by the governments of B.C. and Canada through the 30-by-30 commitment.”

“The Association for Mineral Exploration’s proposal has absolutely nothing to do with conservation,” he said. “The fact [that] the BC NDP government is even looking at the association’s nonsense is a huge scandal”. 

The Narwhal reached out to the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia regarding the meeting Stone described between himself and Eby, but did not receive a response by publication time. The premier’s office directed questions about the comments to the Ministry of Lands, Water, and Resource Stewardship, which sent the statement cited above. 

Conservation groups say the math doesn’t add up 

Despite the ministry’s statement that both “industry and environmental non-governmental organizations” are involved in the process of reviewing conservation measures and goals, Coste says the ministry has not contacted the Wilderness Committee.

The Narwhal did learn that the British Columbia office of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society had been engaged in conversations about how the province calculates protected lands. But those conversations began prior to the Association for Mineral Exploration’s recent lobbying, according to Coste and others The Narwhal interviewed for this story.

Coste says that if the province reaches out to him, his first move would be sharing “photos from this year of massive clear cuts in critical caribou habitat.”

These photos, he explains, are from areas designated as ungulate winter range. A land designation under the Forest and Range Practices Act, it’s meant to protect critical winter habitat for species such as mountain goats, elk, bighorn sheep, deer, moose and caribou. It also accounts for 17.7 per cent of the province’s land mass — land the Association for Mineral Exploration says is closed to mining. 

Back in December 2025, the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship disagreed with that assessment. In the same statement where Minister Neill rebuffed the Association for Mineral Exploration, the ministry argued ungulate winter range didn’t meet the 30-by-30 conservation criteria.

“There are two types of ungulate winter ranges: no harvest and conditional harvest,” the statement read. The former “are subject to restrictions on forestry activities, but do not restrict mineral development and exploration activities.” A conditional harvest zone, meanwhile, may not have stringent enough restrictions on forestry to satisfy international conservation requirements, according to the statement.

In other words, ungulate winter range isn’t fully closed to development. It’s a conclusion the Association for Mineral Exploration shared in a 2016 report, describing it as land “where new mineral claims may be acquired and access for mineral exploration and development may be permitted.”

Coste points to other land designations that the Association for Mineral Exploration calls protected that don’t fit the 30-by-30 criteria. Among them are special management zones and wildlife management areas. Both restrict some, but not all, mining and logging. Like ungulate winter range, the Association for Mineral Exploration’s 2016 report said these areas could be open to mining. 

In special management zones, the report stated that “resource development and extraction opportunities exist.” While in wildlife management zones, “resource extraction like mining may be allowed.”

To Adrienne Berchtold, the director of mining reform and habitat protection at SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, it’s more evidence that the Association for Mineral Exploration’s policy paper is using faulty figures.

“We’ve done some early fact-checking and found that around 27 per cent of operating mines, proposed mines and exploration projects in the province are located in areas [the Association for Mineral Exploration] is telling the government should count as protected areas,” she says. “These numbers show that not only is mining activity possible in these areas, it is actively occurring in significant quantities.”

The problem with ‘other effective conservation measures’

For Coste, one of the most egregious land designations included in the Association for Mineral Exploration’s policy proposal are old growth management areas. According to a 2024 report from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society B.C., less than one-third of old growth management areas are protected old-growth forests. Most of them, the report found, were young forests, and at least 27,300 hectares were active cutblocks. 

“They’re not protected areas,” Coste says. 

But the provincial government includes old growth management areas in the province’s 30-by-30 calculations.

Of the 20 per cent of land and water the province has logged in the Canadian Protected and Conserved Areas Database, 15.9 per cent is parks and protected areas. The other 4.1 per cent are listed under the heading of “other effective area-based conservation measures.”

A vague designation, other effective area-based conservation measures are not parks, conservation lands or other clearly defined, government-recognized protected areas. Their inclusion in 30-by-30 stems from the definition of protected areas developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, an organization headquartered in Switzerland, which counts Canadian government and non-government entities among its members.

It defines a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.”

The “legal” side of this is straightforward: think provincial and federal conservation areas, ecological reserves and parks. “Other effective means” is where things get complicated. 

The province considers old growth management areas protected enough to include in their 30-by-30 calculations. The Association for Mineral Exploration agrees, adding ungulate winter range, special management zones, wildlife management areas and a few other designations they believe should also be included. 

But Coste disagrees, arguing that these designations “clearly don’t meet the International Union for the Conservation of Nature guidelines.” 

He describes the push to include them as government and extractive industries seeking “loopholes” to avoid real conservation. And yet, Coste said there are other means to meeting the 30-by-30 targets.

He points to Indigenous-led conservation areas as an example. These areas can fall into a legal grey zone, declared by nations but not recognized by the provincial or federal government. 

“If it’s Indigenous-declared, they’re probably going to need resources to do management plans and to get Guardians on the ground,” Coste says. “If it’s not a recognized protected area, that funding is not going to flow.”

He says that recognizing these areas as other effective area-based conservation measures could change that. It’s what happened, for example, in the Northwest Territories with Thaidene Nëné. 

An Indigenous protected area located on the northeastern arm of Great Slave Lake, it was designated by the Łutsël K’é Dene First Nation in 2019. Parts of the area were recognized by the territorial government as a territorial protected area and a wildlife conservation area. The rest was recognized by the federal government in 2025, forming the 26,000-square-kilometre Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve. Earlier this year, the project received a major funding boost when the territorial government dispersed $21.6 million to support Indigenous-led conservation. 

Without these other pathways to establish protected areas, Matthew Mitchell, a professor and researcher at the University of British Columbia’s faculties of land and food systems and forestry and environmental stewardship, isn’t sure that B.C. or Canada can meet the 30-by-30 targets. 

“We can’t always do conservation the way we traditionally think about it,” he says.

In 2021, Mitchell served on an expert panel convened by Environment and Climate Change Canada to explore pathways to meet Canada’s conservation goals. Along with other researchers, he concluded meeting the 30-by-30 target would require innovative solutions. 

He advocates for approaches such as Indigenous protected areas, urban parks and biosphere reserves that include working landscapes.

“There are lots of good examples of working landscape conservation, agricultural areas where we’re adding in buffer strips and hedgerows,” he says. “Things that can actually have big benefits to a variety of wildlife and agricultural production.”

These are the kinds of other effective area-based conservation measures that he thinks are useful. But he also acknowledges there are pitfalls, and that opening the door to interpretations like the Association for Mineral Exploration’s isn’t helpful. 

“How you define these things and how effective they are actually really matters,” he says. “Putting them all into one bin and saying that we’ve hit our 30 per cent target is not a good way to go.”

A proposed Indigenous protected area in the crosshairs 

At roughly 40,000 square kilometres, the Dene Kʼéh Kusān Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area would be among the largest tracts of protected land in British Columbia. Located at the heart of the Kaska Dena nation’s traditional territory, it’s four times the size of Tweedsmuir Provincial Park, the largest park in the province.

“As Kaska, we’ve been stewards of our territory, so in our mind, it’s about thoughtful land use planning that will protect one of the most intact ecosystems in North America,” Michelle Miller, director of culture and land stewardship at the Dena Kayeh Institute, says.

When it’s recognized, she adds, the Kaska will be able to promote sustainable economic growth and protect land, water and critical habitat. It would also contribute to the province’s conservation goals. 

“Dene Kʼéh Kusān is four per cent of the province,” Miller explains. “Protecting it would go a long way to helping B.C. achieve its 30-by-30 goals.”

That has led projects like Dene Kʼéh Kusān to land in the Association for Mineral Exploration’s crosshairs. In their December 2025 policy proposal, the association called for a stop to “Northwest Land Use Plans, which are expected to add … significant new conservation areas to the province.” Conservation areas like Dene Kʼéh Kusān.

But Miller questions the association’s framing. 

“The idea of pitting conservation against economy, and against job creation, I think it’s an outdated argument,” she says. Dene Kʼéh Kusān is “not about opposing mining, it’s about where that can occur in other areas throughout the territory.” 

For Miller, that balance is at the heart of a “modern conservation economy” where “Indigenous stewardship, healthy ecosystems and economic opportunity can all move forward together.”

It’s a view she hopes won’t be lost if the government works with mining interests to change how they approach conservation and the 30-by-30 target. 

“The whole conversation around how you get to 30-by-30, I think we can recognize there’s some creative math going on there,” she says. “But we’re not here to debate that. We’re just here to say that Dene Kʼéh Kusān is worth protecting.”

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.

This story is part of a series called Shockwave: Rising energy demand and the future of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes region is in the midst of a seismic energy shakeup, from skyrocketing data centre demand and a nuclear energy boom, to expanding renewables and electrification. In 2026, the Great Lakes News Collaborative will explore how shifting supply and demand affect the region and its waters.

Summary

• Reusing waste heat could help the Great Lakes reduce climate change emissions from heating and cooling buildings.
• The region has a huge opportunity for energy innovation that could reduce costs to consumers and limit damage to land and water.
• The biggest barriers are political and organizational.

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

The energy system in the Great Lakes region, as in most parts of North America, is wasteful. Stupendously wasteful.

Consider these data points. Two-thirds of the energy generated by the 2,100-megawatt Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, east of Toronto, comes in the form of heat, not electricity. The excess heat is transferred to cooling water that is dumped into Lake Ontario.

For data centres, a booming, voracious energy user, nearly all the electricity that enters a facility to power servers turns into heat. Ejecting that heat so that the servers continue to support Zoom calls and ChatGPT queries can consume gobs of energy and water.

Even underground business and household waste holds wasted energy. Sewage flows in pipes at an average temperature of roughly 15 C, a thermal energy source waiting for an enterprising soul to tap into and extract the heat.

A movement is underway to do just that — mine the region’s power plants, data centres and sewers for heat and use it to develop cleaner, cheaper energy that helps reduce or remove carbon emissions from heating and cooling. The same practices cut the expense of adding new electric generating capacity.

Such a transformation is certainly possible and has been embraced in northern Europe. But it will not be easy here. Though the physics and equipment for waste-heat recovery are tested and proven, other barriers — financial, organizational and political — are more formidable hurdles for a region and a country in which energy efficiency is less valued than energy expansion.

“It’s not a technology issue,” said Luke Gaalswyk, president and chief executive officer of Ever-Green Energy, a district energy company based in St. Paul, Minnesota, that is eyeing wastewater as a heat source. “The engineering of this is well understood. It’s an awareness issue, it’s a funding issue, it’s a priority issue. We, the United States, don’t have the same policy frameworks or funding mechanisms that Europeans do as it relates to these sorts of projects and incentivizing waste-heat recovery.”

Gaalswyk and others see tantalizing opportunities for waste heat in aiding the region’s electric transition. The benefits include cheaper energy, less exposure to fossil fuel price fluctuations, fewer carbon emissions, less land disruption to build new generating and transmission capacity, and less thermal pollution into waterways. But getting there, they say, requires foundational shifts in understanding, attitudes and public policy. 

A new energy scenario

Electricity demand in the Great Lakes is growing, in some states for the first time in decades. If the projected buildout occurs, data centres will gobble electricity while the climate-friendly push to electrify everything boosts demand for electrons. 

Thermal networks, such as district heating systems that circulate hot water or steam to multiple buildings, garner less attention. Comparable to a home radiator at scale, they have been part of the urban energy landscape for more than a century, predating the invention of the gas-powered automobile. College campuses have them, as do hospital complexes. Cities like St. Paul, Chicago, Rochester and Lansing use district heating or cooling in their downtown cores. Toronto has a district cooling system that uses water drawn from deep in Lake Ontario to cool 80 buildings.

Waste heat — or, heat that is currently regarded as waste — could be a new reservoir of energy for district heating systems.

To find one source, building owners need only look beneath their basements. Promoting sewer thermal energy is a passion project for Paul Kohl, the board chair of the Sewer Thermal Energy Network, a trade association founded in 2023 to advocate for an unsung energy source. “We thought, let’s get people talking about it,” he said.

Kohl’s primary pitch is that sewer thermal energy goes hand-in-hand with reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Say an office complex wants to stop burning fuel oil for heat and instead wants to install a heat pump. An air-source heat pump, which extracts heat from ambient air, is a common option. But it can be problematic in an era of constrained electricity supply.

“What we’re finding is there are certain entities that are really excited about electrifying their building stock but they’re running into electrical demand problems,” Kohl said. “They can’t get enough electricity from the supplier.”

Enter sewer thermal. The building owner could instead tap into the sewer line running beneath the property and circulate the wastewater through a water-based heat pump that extracts the heat. The sewage is always contained and is not a health risk for those in the building. The water-based heat pump still uses electricity, but because of water’s superior capacity to transfer heat, its electricity demand is about half that of an air-based unit. In short, the well-understood thermal dynamics of water translate into substantial energy savings.

The sewer is a heat resource that constantly renews itself — people take showers, do laundry and wash dishes every day, using hot water in the process. The heat that went into the water could be used again. So why aren’t there more such systems? Kohl cited two major obstacles. One is knee-jerk revulsion, typically from the general public. “The ‘ick’ factor,” he said. 

The second is an unwillingness from utilities to allow other organizations to access their pipe infrastructure when it is not the utility’s mandate to do so. The utilities, he said, are more concerned with regulatory compliance and ensuring the integrity of their pipes.

Asked if his organization operates like a matchmaker, uniting parties that otherwise might not have met, Kohl turned the analogy around. A matchmaker works only if there are willing participants, he said. “A lot of water and wastewater utilities are the consummate bachelors. So they’re like, ‘If I never have to do this, great.’”

What brings utilities into the market? Progressive leadership, Kohl said.

Leaders heating the way

That leadership is on display in pockets around the Great Lakes region, from both the public and private sectors. 

In St. Paul, Ever-Green Energy has drawn up plans to tap the heat in the roughly 650,000,000 litres of wastewater that flows daily out of the Metropolitan Council’s treatment plant and into the Mississippi River. The US $150 million project would use the wastewater heat to replace the natural gas that currently fuels half of the district energy system, which is the largest hot water system in the United States.

Project proponents, including the City of St. Paul and Ever-Green, applied for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s climate pollution reduction grant in 2024 but they were not selected. (Ever-Green’s wastewater heat project in Duluth also was not selected for the grant.) Though Clean Heat St. Paul, as the project is known, is currently unfunded, leaders continue to advocate for it.

“It presents an enormous opportunity for our community, for our state, to build a project that would generate global recognition around what’s possible with linking up wastewater and district heating,” Gaalswyk said.

Across the border, Toronto Western Hospital, part of the city’s leading hospital system, partnered with Noventa, an energy company, to install the world’s largest raw sewage thermal system. Completed in 2025, the project provides about 90 per cent of the hospital’s heating and cooling. 

Also in Toronto, Enwave, a district energy company, operates the Deep Lake Water Cooling system that uses cold water drawn from Lake Ontario to cool 115 buildings before the water is sent to taps as drinking water. Enwave, which operates systems across eastern Canada, is now adapting that system to utilize waste heat from the cooling operations so that heating and cooling work in tandem. At the same time, the company is considering sewer heat recovery from a wastewater treatment plant in Mississauga, Ont.

“The idea is you’re trying to capture waste heat in whatever form you can find it in,” said Carson Gemmill, vice president for solutions and innovations at Enwave.

More trade associations are embracing that logic. The Boltzmann Institute, a group of engineers focused on obstacles to electrification, persuaded the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers to start a campaign in September 2025 to advocate for thermal energy systems. Since the province is considering new nuclear power plants and building small modular reactors, including four 300-megawatt units at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, the institute would like to see their designs incorporate waste heat reuse.

“In Ontario, the heat rejected from nuclear power plants is quite a bit greater than the heat required for heating with natural gas in the whole province,” said Michael Wiggin, a Boltzmann Institute director who is also leading the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers’ thermal energy advocacy. “So there’s an enormous possibility to use the heat from these power plants to heat cities.”

Waste heat can flip conventional narratives on their head. Data centres today are maligned for their energy needs. Yet what if their waste heat was put to beneficial use? 

That’s the objective in Lansing, Michigan, where Deep Green, a London-based company, has proposed a 24-megawatt, US $120-million data centre project that would transfer its waste heat into a district heating system run by the Lansing Board of Water and Light, a water and power provider. The Lansing City Council is set to vote on the project on April 6.

“Previously, we didn’t consider heat as an asset because we didn’t need to,” Mark Lee, CEO of Deep Green, wrote in a January 2026 blog post. “There was an abundance of power, cheap energy and less awareness of environmental impact. That’s changing: electricity prices are high, grids are congested and there’s pressure to meet net-zero and [environmental, social and governance] targets.”

Barriers to entry

Even with these first steps, energy experts agree that North America, as a whole, is playing catch-up. Scandinavian countries have been reusing waste heat for decades. Stockholm has a 3,000-kilometre district energy pipe network that serves 800,000 residents and more than 90 per cent of the city’s buildings. More than 30 data centres feed waste heat into the system. In Oslo, sewer thermal provided nearly 7 per cent of the energy for the city’s district heating system in 2025. As a whole, the system provides 30 per cent of Oslo’s heating and hot water demand. China, a more recent entrant in the market, has developed world-champion projects in Qingdao and elsewhere.

Committed cities and governments can reach scale quickly. “The Chinese had nothing hardly in the early ’90s, now they’ve got perhaps the most district heating installed capacity in the world,” Wiggin said.

Rapid growth in waste-heat recovery will not happen in the Great Lakes region on its own. Without policy signals, electric companies, data centre operators and water utilities don’t have the incentives to innovate and co-operate, Kohl said. And for waste heat, collaboration is the key to success.

What are those policy signals? Gaalswyk focused on carrots: tax breaks for companies that install heat recovery systems and a quicker permitting process for those that incorporate efficiency measures.

Wiggin, by contrast, outlined the sticks. A tax on waste heat. State or provincial efficiency standards.

Kohl mentioned both measures. Massachusetts, he noted, set aside state funds for waste-heat recovery feasibility studies. New York, meanwhile, passed a law in 2022 to develop a regulatory framework for thermal energy networks. The law requires the largest investor-owned utilities to submit pilot projects for development.

Those in the district energy industry see waste heat as a massive opportunity, one that begins in the early stages of project development, whether it’s a data centre or a nuclear power station. Incorporating waste-heat recovery into a project’s initial design is easier than retrofitting the facility in the future.

“Our thesis is data centre projects that are bringing additional layers of community benefit to communities will find more success in building trust and gaining the necessary social licence to operate,” Gaalswyk said. “A really important aspect of that is heat recovery, free heat. Again, it’s not a technology issue. We have the heat pumps, we have the industry that can design heat offtake. It’s a matter of figuring out how to get a diverse stakeholder group to work together to realize these benefits in tandem.”

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 the first few weeks of 2026, B.C. approved two mines and signed a significant critical minerals agreement with other provinces and territories. At the same time, Premier David Eby is doubling down on his desire to change the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), after a court ruling in December agreed with two First Nations’ claim that B.C.’s mineral claim staking regime did not fulfill the government’s obligations to consult with First Nations.  

The premier is not being shy about what he wants. 

“We will be the economic engine of the new economy that we are building here as Canadians,” Eby said in Prince George, B.C., on Jan. 21.

The push to fast-track critical mineral mines in the province has some residents of the northwest asking questions. B.C. is unable to process critical minerals, apart from aluminum, so anything mined will need to be sent to China or Japan or elsewhere to be processed, Nikki Skuce told The Narwhal in an interview.

Skuce directs Northern Confluence, based out of Smithers, B.C., which focuses on protecting watersheds for salmon and reforming mining practices to be more sustainable and aligned with Indigenous Rights.

“The term critical mineral itself holds really well because it creates a sense of urgency,” she said, adding B.C. does not track where mined resources from the province go, or what they are used for when they reach their final destinations — though they are sometimes used to make military weapons.

“I think if people understood that the mined materials in their territory and backyard were going to make bombs dropped on Gaza, or F35s for military defence that are sourced from the United States, they might give pause and go another direction,” she said.

Other questions remain about the possible effects of amending the Declaration Act on the mining industry in B.C. — and the economic benefits promised.

B.C.’s mining push and the critical minerals agenda

The Western Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy was signed on Jan. 25 by B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut stating that signatories are looking to strengthen Western and Northern Canada by becoming “a preferred global supplier of responsibly sourced critical minerals.” 

These seven provinces and territories are rich in critical minerals, with B.C. housing 16 of the 34 minerals and metals identified by the Canadian government. 

On the Government of Canada website, it says critical minerals “are used in a wide range of essential products ranging from mobile phones and solar panels to electric vehicle batteries, medical devices and defence applications.”

The push to mine these critical minerals has been heightened by tariffs threats from the United States, with Prime Minister Mark Carney using “shovels in the ground” language since being elected to office in April. The B.C. mine on Carney’s list of projects to fast-track is the expansion of the Red Chris mine in the province’s northwest. 

Meanwhile, Eby has a list of his own which includes Red Chris and 17 other projects, two of which were approved in January. 

Mount Milligan, a gold-copper mine in northeastern B.C., is extending operations until 2035, Eby announced in Prince George on Jan. 21. The fast-tracked permits received the go-ahead from B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office — a process that some Indigenous people are warning others about. 

Surrounding Mount Milligan are 18 reserves that make up the Nak’azdli Whut’en First Nation led by Chief Colleen Erickson. In a news release on the nation’s website, it says the environmental assessment process in B.C. has been undermined because the province “retroactively approved unpermitted water discharges” by releasing sulphur into neighbouring lakes. 

The release states discharge permits were not part of the original certificate and members of the nation are concerned about local fish populations and health because high levels of sulphur are toxic to aquatic organisms. 

Meanwhile, in Tahltan territory in northwestern B.C., the former Eskay Creek mine is in the process of reopening to produce gold and silver. The B.C. government released the news on Jan. 25 — four days after the Mount Milligan announcement.

Eskay Creek became the first consent-based agreement for a mining project, under Section 7 of the Declaration Act, after the nation voted in favour of the project last December.

Merle Alexander, a First Nations lawyer in B.C. who helped develop DRIPA, told The Narwhal in an interview that even when Indigenous people “co-develop the rules, if [the government] doesn’t like it, they just change it,” regarding recent conversations about revising the act this spring.

He congratulated the Tahltan on their Section 7 agreement with B.C., noting that DRIPA works for the government when it comes to obtaining critical minerals.

“They lean into DRIPA when it works in their favour and then reject it when they have judicial losses,” he said, noting that most mines in B.C. are approved without consent-based agreements with First Nations, and that most B.C. mines face First Nation opposition despite getting approved, using the Highland Valley Copper mine expansion near Kamloops as an example.

How fast can we go here?

When it comes to speeding up industry and legislation timelines in B.C., Skuce said the way the province approaches rare earth elements, through the Mineral Tenure Act, needed reform long before the Declaration Act came into effect.

“The Mineral Tenure Act is a colonial hangover. Since 1859 it has allowed prospectors priority use of the land and free entry into everywhere,” she said.

Skuce finds it “really disappointing” that B.C. seems to be focused on amending DRIPA instead of updating the Mineral Tenure Act.

Though economic prosperity is the most cited reason for fast-tracking major infrastructure projects in B.C. and Canada, studies are still looking into the validity of those claims. 

According to an October 2025 report out of the University of British Columbia, mines in B.C. overpromise and under-deliver on economic benefits and project timelines — with little means to hold the industry accountable to their forecasted targets.

Although gaps in the data limited a comprehensive audit, the report found mines in B.C. underperformed compared to expectations, based on the available information. Forty per cent of mines in the dataset closed temporarily at least once.

Regulatory issues are often cited in delayed or failing mining projects, but the report found the most commonly cited reason for mines closing or being delayed in B.C. is economic constraints — not regulations. 

As the Eby government prepares to release its budget Tuesday, the premier’s recent comments about appealing the Gitxaała decision and amending DRIPA are top of mind for many.

Updated on Feb. 17, 2025, at 12:33 p.m. PT: This story has been updated to clarify that critical minerals mined in B.C. are sent to China, Japan and elsewhere to be processed. It has also been updated to state that critical minerals are sometimes used to create military weapons, not often as previously reported.

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.

This story is part of a series called Shockwave: Rising energy demand and the future of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes region is in the midst of a seismic energy shakeup, from skyrocketing data centre demand and a nuclear energy boom, to expanding renewables and electrification. In 2026, the Great Lakes News Collaborative will explore how shifting supply and demand affect the region and its waters.

A six-decade history in the Great Lakes region of ecosystem and water protection is being put to the test as a dynamic era of energy investment, rising electricity demand, aging assets and political intervention dawns across the basin.

The energy story emerging today is one of tumultuous change in energy supply and demand coupled with conflicting state and federal objectives that are colliding with a buzzy economic narrative centred around artificial intelligence (AI) and data centres. Electricity consumption in the basin’s eight states and two provinces is climbing for the first time in at least a decade. 

Forecasts show electricity demand in the region growing two to three per cent annually over the next 10 years. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is injecting carbon-promoting policies into energy markets, requiring coal power plants in Michigan and Indiana to continue operating beyond their announced closure dates while also slowing solar and wind projects, two energy sources that emit no climate-altering carbon and use little to no water. 

Along with coal, another water-intensive energy source is being revived or reimagined to satisfy projected electricity demands. With nearly US$3 billion in federal and state financing, the 55-year-old Palisades Nuclear Generating Station is preparing to restart after a four-year shutdown. When it does, the old reactor will draw 370,000 litres a minute, 530 million litres a day, from Lake Michigan.  

In addition to these legacy energy sources, new gas-fired power plants, battery storage, transmission lines and a planned new nuclear plant north of Benton Harbor, in Michigan, are being added to keep pace with demand. Agriculture, the region’s biggest water consumer and water polluter, is playing a larger role in energy production — by converting corn into biofuel and producing methane from manure in industrial-scale biodigesters.

Liquid fuels also remain in the spotlight due to the lingering question of Line 5, an oil pipeline that crosses the Straits of Mackinac. The future of the 73-year-old pipeline is the subject of several lawsuits, with key legal and permitting decisions expected in 2026.

This is the first article in our Shockwave project, a series of reports that will investigate the rapid evolution of the energy landscape in the Great Lakes region and the consequences the new era will have for one of the world’s largest reserves of fresh water. Produced by the five partners of the Great Lakes News Collaborative — Bridge Michigan, Circle of Blue, Great Lakes Now, Michigan Public and The Narwhal — Shockwave will document the depth and breadth of the region’s energy transformation and its influence on water use and pollution.

“As electricity demand is soaring, in part due to data centres, we’re seeing changes in water use, we’re seeing changes in electricity consumption,” said Mike Shriberg, director of the University of Michigan Water Center. “And how our region responds to that over the long term will have a massive impact for the Great Lakes and for our energy future.”

Altogether, these changes amount to an inflection point in the region’s energy policy, one with as many questions as answers. Will data centre demand and the White House’s lifeline to fossil fuel units jeopardize state clean energy targets? Will the numerous binational, regional and state-level consultative bodies enable collaboration that reduces harm to waterways? Can local officials, researchers and lawmakers assemble the data to inform their responses? Will a decade-long decline in the energy sector’s water use continue or stall? Will the projected data centre demand for electricity materialize or will the energy buildout result in stranded assets?

What is certain is that the energy playing field today is set up for a different game than just a few years ago. These are still early days, but the region, its US$9.3-trillion economy, its border-crossing energy infrastructure and its world-class environmental riches stand at the threshold of a profound shift in some of its basic economic inputs and assumptions.

Top-down orders

The changes begin at the top. 

For political, ideological and grid reliability reasons, the Trump administration is adamant on propping up fossil fuels and shepherding a nuclear power revival. It is doing so through executive orders and agency action. 

The Department of Energy issued a series of emergency orders to prevent the coal-fired J.H. Campbell Power Plant, in West Olive, Michigan, on the shore of Lake Michigan, from shutting down last year. It issued a separate order in December to prevent the closures of the R.M. Schahfer Generating Station and F.B. Culley Generating Station in Indiana. 

In addition, the administration extended the deadline for closing coal waste dumps in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, though none is directly within the basin. Though the administration asserts it is “clean,” coal is the dirtiest and among the thirstiest sources of electricity. 

The Department of Energy excluded small modular reactors, or SMRs, and other “advanced” nuclear generation technologies from National Environmental Policy Act review. SMR developers promote the new reactors as more mobile and less risky than the older generation of big reactors. SMRs are under development or have been proposed in Ontario, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Canada, too, has announced national energy strategies that appear certain to affect Great Lakes waters. Rebuffed and taunted by tariffs imposed by President Trump, Prime Minister Mark Carney told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, “We are an energy superpower.” Carney outlined his plan for $1 trillion in fast-tracked Canadian investments in energy, AI and critical minerals. He also promoted a national infrastructure campaign for oil pipelines, electricity transmission lines and mines.

Big political announcements are reinforced by facts on the ground. The numbers tell a story of rapid growth in electricity demand that has analysts reaching back decades for a historical equivalent. Some compare it to the push for rural electrification in the United States after the Second World War. Already rising, electricity demand in the Great Lakes region could soar ever higher if high-tech corporate interest in data centres manifests as real-world construction. This comes as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a regulatory agency, warns that the Great Lakes region faces high risk of electricity shortfalls in the next five years due to rising demand and power plant retirements.

This represents a head-spinning, era-defining reversal in electrical demand. In Wisconsin, electricity sales had been on a downward slope since the 2007 recession began. By one estimate, data centre electricity demand in the state will increase seven-fold by 2030, amounting to more than four per cent of its electricity consumption. Data centre load in northern Illinois has climbed 27 per cent annually between 2022 and 2025, according to ComEd, the region’s electric utility. 

DTE Energy, the largest Michigan electric utility, announced a deal last fall to provide power to the 1,383-megawatt Green Chile Ventures data centre in Washtenaw County. The Michigan Public Service Commission conditionally approved the state’s first “hyperscale” development in December. 

Consumers, the second largest electric provider in Michigan, has 9,000 megawatts of projects in its development pipeline, mostly for data centre and manufacturing.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, announced a 20-year deal with Vistra last month to buy 2,100 megawatts from three nuclear plants while also expanding the generating capacity at those facilities. The agreement covers Perry and Davis-Besse, both located along Lake Erie in Ohio, as well as Beaver Valley, in Pennsylvania along the Ohio River. Meta also signed an agreement with California-based Oklo Inc. to build a 1,200-megawatt SMR plant in Ohio.

The rise in electricity demand could pose a challenge to state renewable energy goals. Illinois has a target of 100 per cent clean energy by 2050. For Michigan’s electric utilities, the deadline is sooner: 100 per cent clean energy by 2040.

That shift to renewables and the closure of water-intensive coal plants has been a net benefit for Great Lakes water so far. Water is drawn from lakes and rivers to cool the equipment at thermoelectric power stations, a category that includes fossil fuels and nuclear. Water withdrawals in the basin for thermoelectric power are down 24 per cent compared to a decade ago, according to a University of Michigan report prepared for the Conference of Great Lakes St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers. That decline is true for power plants that use once-through cooling as well as for those that have recirculating systems that reduce withdrawals but increase consumption.

There are “substantial water savings as the region transitions away from traditional fossil fuels,” the report found. Besides water demand, the shift away from thermoelectric plants means fewer fish sucked into cooling-water pipes or trapped against their screens. It means less thermal pollution of nearshore waters and rivers. It means less mercury deposited into waterways from coal plant air emissions.

The downward trend could shift upwards this year when the Palisades nuclear plant is scheduled to open, and may tilt higher as another shuttered nuclear plant in Wisconsin could reopen and new SMR plants come online. For data centres, the largest piece of their water use is not in direct operations. It is through the electricity they consume.

Years ago, the Great Lakes Commission, which represents the eight basin states and two Canadian provinces, was thinking about the same questions of water supply. In 2011, the commission published the findings from a multi-year project to identify water quality and quantity vulnerabilities in the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes basin due to thermoelectric power generation. 

The analysis, led by Sandia National Laboratories, considered multiple power generation projections and assessed three energy-related risk factors for the region’s water resources: water quality, thermal pollution of waterways and low stream flows. It was the first model to consider water resources in future electricity scenarios for the region. A fifth of the basin’s 102 subwatersheds scored a high risk in at least two categories.

The commission published the analysis, but largely moved on. No follow-up review was completed to determine the project’s effectiveness in shaping policy, said Erika Jensen, the commission’s executive director.

Today with data centres commanding so much attention, the water-energy connection resurfaced. That focus is partly due to growing public pushback against data centre growth. Lawmakers in Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota have introduced legislation to mandate more transparency from data centre operators on their water and energy use.

At its meeting last October, the Great Lakes Commission signaled its reengagement when the commissioners — largely high-ranking state officials and lawmakers — signed two new resolutions related to energy and water. One resolution encourages water reuse for industry, where appropriate. The other, on the water-energy nexus, asserts the “importance of coordinating and integrating water, energy and sustainable resource management” in the face of data centre development and related industries that are poised to increase energy demand and water use.

The resolutions reaffirmed that energy and water are back on the table at the highest levels, Jensen said. “We’re just getting restarted right now.”

Looking back, looking forward

Electricity is only part of the region’s evolving energy story. Aging legacy assets are also a part of the mix. 

The most noteworthy of these older assets is Line 5, the 1,000-kilometre oil pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ont. Enbridge, the Canadian company that owns the pipeline, wants to drill a tunnel to house the structure so that it does not sit exposed on the lakebed. Michigan officials are seeking to shut down the line. Lawsuits are proceeding in both state and federal courts, with a U.S. Supreme Court hearing later this month to determine the appropriate venue. 

The outcome will be a bellwether for energy policy, Shriberg said. “It’s really symbolic and may be determinant of which direction this region and this country is headed on energy and water issues.”

Reliable water and cheap energy are foundational economic pieces. Historically, these resource inputs were the great engines of the Great Lakes economy. Water-intensive industries — tanneries, breweries, pulp mills, manufacturers and the like — were drawn to a region where they could extract water and pump out profits. Nuclear and coal-fired power plants were installed on the shores of Michigan, Ontario, Huron, Superior and Erie, the source of water to cool their electricity-generating equipment.

Today a different set of businesses has entered the market. The entire sweep of large water users catalyzed by the new energy economy — semiconductors, battery manufacturers — need to be part of the water-use equation, said Alaina Harkness, CEO of Current, a Chicago-based organization focused on water innovation.

“If we had better policy and planning frameworks, this could be a great place to do that relative to some of the water-scarce regions in the rest of the country,” Harkness said. “But again, we’ve got to shift our frameworks, got to look much more at water reuse and these water-energy connections.”

There is indeed opportunity in the new energy landscape, said Liesl Clark, director of climate action engagement at the University of Michigan and the former head of the state environment agency. Not just for a foothold in the 21st century economy, but also for continuing on a low-carbon path and strengthening the policies that ensure the region’s water is not abused in the process.

“How do we make sure we’re doing it in the most protective way possible in the state?” Clark asked.

As the new energy era takes shape, that is a prevailing question not just for Michigan but for the region as a whole.

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.

2026 has already had its fair share of geopolitical chaos: Alberta separatists meeting with U.S. officials, everything happening in the U.S., global retreat from emissions reductions, Greenland. The list goes on.

But that’s not all that’s ringing in the new year. There are plenty of real things happening within the confines of Alberta, from the government’s continued pushback against emissions reductions to continued promotion of hunting and, of course, the seemingly unending conversations about pipelines. 

Let’s dig into what’s been happening in Alberta since the start of this year.

Alberta is looking to borrow big money

Why does an Alberta government agency need to borrow nearly $1 billion?That’s a very good question — one even the former head of that provincial agency is asking.Last year, the government announced it would allow oilsands producers to pay their royalties with barrels of bitumen, instead of cold, hard cash — known as Bitumen Royalty In Kind, or BRIK. 

It’s something the government has done on the conventional oil and gas side for years. 

When a company opts to pay with barrels, the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission sells those barrels on the open market. That money then goes to the government. 

Last week, however, the government quietly authorized the commission to borrow as much as $900,000,000 for “hydrocarbon marketing activities.” 

It also (and apologies in advance, because this is long and boring — but important!) “approves the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission purchasing shares, making loans, entering into joint ventures or partnerships or providing guarantees for hydrocarbon marketing activities,” and “authorizes the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission to incorporate or acquire one or more subsidiary corporations for hydrocarbon marketing activities.”

That means the commission can borrow almost $1 billion to shore up companies, provide financial security and more. Why should the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission have to borrow money if all they’re doing is getting oil for free (instead of royalties) and then selling it? And why do it now? 

Richard Masson, a fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy and former head of the commission, came right out and said this could be a way for the Alberta government to either backstop a new pipeline project, or try to buy more oil to spur more production because there’s not actually enough oil to fill all these new pipelines and expansions. 

Either way, the government is still amped to push for a new pipeline through B.C., unveiling a new website to act as a central hub of (questionably objective) information on the project, which, if you remember, still doesn’t have a company that wants to build it. 

Perhaps $1 billion will help change some minds. Also, reminder, the province burned $1.3 billion backstopping the failed Keystone XL project. 

An Alberta minister travelled to Montana to talk about electricity

In Alberta, there’s never a shortage of things to talk about when it comes to keeping the lights on. 

Minister of Affordability and Utilities Nathan Neudorf travelled to Montana in January to talk about grid reliability and working with neighbours. 

“Meeting rising electricity demands means looking beyond our borders,” he said in a news release. “Powering up our electrical ties with Montana is about building a strong foundation for shared energy security, while ensuring that the electricity Albertans depend on remains reliable and affordable for generations.”

Unfortunately, Montana is a wee bit miffed at Alberta at the moment and it’s all because the province isn’t working with its neighbours. 

The state says Alberta is restricting the flow of power on its cross-border connection (known as interties) and the company which owns the line has filed a complaint against the province with the Alberta Utilities Commission. 

The issue has also been raised by the Trump administration as a trade irritant. 

Alberta denies the claims, but it is facing similar complaints from B.C. Meanwhile, on its eastern border, the intertie with Saskatchewan was down for about a year, but has now resumed operations. 

And another Alberta minister went to Nevada to auction off a hunting licence

Todd Loewen, the minister of forestry and parks, and a hunting enthusiast, returned to Nevada for the Wild Sheep Foundation Sheep Show in January for the third time to hype his annual auction of a special licence to hunt bighorn sheep in Alberta. (Yes, lots of sheep in that sentence.) 

Last year, the auction raised $400,000 to ensure there’s at least one less sheep in the world. 

Alberta is (again) musing about nuclear power

The provincial government, whose policies have effectively killed the most robust renewable electricity market in Canada, wants to hear what Albertans think about building nuclear power in the province to help, uh, generate clean electricity. 

A panel, which includes a United Conservative Party MLA and a former NDP MLA, will listen to public feedback and prepare a report of the government at the end of March. The last panel hosted by the province resulted in the executive director of the Alberta premier’s office telling a high school student he should be spanked. So, you know, I guess these things are never boring?

Albertans are still mad about coal mining

Alberta musician Corb Lund has successfully submitted a citizen’s petition against coal mining on the eastern slopes, after his previous petition was scuttled by the province changing the rules. 

Lund has been an outspoken critic of the government’s plans to reopen a stretch of the Rocky Mountains to new coal mines, warning it threatens the water supply and the livelihood of ranchers. 

The petition calls for the province to legislate against all “coal exploration and mining activities” on the eastern slopes for mines that aren’t already producing coal as of Jan. 1, 2026, and any mine expansions.

The petition still has some bureaucratic hoops to jump through before Lund can rally canvassers to collect signatures.

Alberta is full-steam ahead on data centre proposals

The largest data centre in Canada could be built in Olds, Alta., which the company, Synapse Data Centre, says will involve a $10-billion investment, including its own gas power plant and promises of a closed-loop water system that will reduce the plant’s thirst. 

That’s different from the one you might recall that was announced by Kevin O’Leary in December 2024 — a data centre more than 32 times the size of the largest data centre in the world — which is still nowhere to be found.

Data centres consume huge amounts of energy and water. The Alberta government thinks they’re great and wants to see $100-billion worth of them across the province. 

Of course, there’s that little issue of not having enough electricity to actually power all those centres, so the province introduced legislation to allow developers to build their own supply, like the on-site natural gas plant in Olds. 

“We see this enormous opportunity to grow our tax base, to grow domestic demand for our natural resources,” Nate Glubish, the minister of technology and innovation, said while announcing the changes. 

Updated on Feb. 5, 2026, at 11:10 a.m. MT: This story has been updated to correct an error. The nuclear power consultation panel includes one United Conservative Party MLA (Chantelle de Jonge), not two. It also includes a former NDP MLA, Deron Bilous.

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.

The latest power struggle over the future of the Canadian economy — a hypothetical new pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast — has devolved into a rote debate: are First Nations blocking economic progress?

Coastal First Nations — an alliance of nine First Nations along the north coast of B.C. — have reiterated their strong support for the oil tanker ban the federal government put in place in 2019. It prohibits tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of oil from travelling through their waters but is threatened by the pipeline proposed by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and endorsed nominally by Prime Minister Mark Carney. B.C. Premier David Eby has pointed out the project has “no proponent, no route, no money.”

Such a pipeline would offer “unprecedented opportunities for Indigenous ownership, partnership, economic benefits, as well as substantial economic benefits for the people of British Columbia,” Carney has said, suggesting that the right incentives might change Indigenous opponents’ tune. But Marilyn Slett, elected chief of Heiltsuk Nation and president of Coastal First Nations, told APTN in a recent interview that it “isn’t about money in this situation.”

“It’s about the responsibility of looking after our territories and nurturing the sustainable economies that we currently have here.” 

It’s easy to file this away as more evidence of a familiar narrative: that First Nations are opposed to the economic progress that Canada needs to grow. In 2026, that narrative includes Canada’s need to protect itself from increasingly unpredictable threats (we all know from who) and attain true security and sovereignty as a nation. 

This is a tired line of argument. The Canadian economy does not depend on an imaginary pipeline, nor on just its oil and gas, logging and mining companies (many of which don’t mean much for Canadian sovereignty, as they are foreign-owned). They are pieces of the economic puzzle, but far from the only ones; mining and oil and gas make up around seven per cent of the national GDP. 

The marine ecosystems Coastal First Nations are fighting to protect are also part of the economy, and it’s time we started considering their values too.

Undermining legitimate territorial interests is a lazy argument against conservation

Let me get another tired trope out of the way: the attempt to weaken conservation and protection arguments by challenging who is Indigenous enough to have them. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and others have painted Coastal First Nations as an “anti-pipeline group” that “doesn’t speak for” Indigenous communities. This is demonstrably untrue — its members are chief and council members of represented First Nations along the north coast. 

While it’s true there are dozens of First Nations with territorial interests along the full coast of B.C., the members of Coastal First Nations are speaking for what happens in their specific marine territories. We’ve seen this kind of argument before, as when Coastal GasLink proclaimed its agreements with 20 First Nations as sufficient proof of Indigenous support — even though none of those nations had territory that intersected with the pipeline. 

But what a First Nation along the southern coast or elsewhere in the province might hypothetically think about the oil tanker ban matters less than those whose territories are actually impacted — though groups that represent far more B.C. First Nations, including the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, have also called to uphold the tanker ban. 

On to what matters: shortsighted discussions of the economy in Canada that begin and end with the resource sector. 

Part of the animosity towards First Nations’ opposition to resource projects is the belief that consultation and consent slows down projects and adds to their costs. But breaching or ignoring Indigenous Rights generally results in expensive lawsuits for Canadian governments — time and again, courts across the country have affirmed that territorial rights exist, and awarded Indigenous communities sizable settlements when they are breached. And nothing slows down a project like a long court battle. 

That doesn’t mean projects aren’t still proposed, started and completed without consent, but politicians are beginning to understand that working with First Nations (rather than losing to them repeatedly in court) has economic advantages. In B.C. Eby has championed deals in Nisga’a Nation for the Ksi Lisims LNG project and Tahltan Nation for mining — even as he vows to revise the province’s landmark Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

What Eby hasn’t mentioned lately is one of B.C.’s most economically beneficial agreements to date: the Great Bear Rainforest, a protected area created in partnership between Coastal First Nations, Nanwakolas Council and the province, which has generated $1.77 billion in economic activity for B.C. since its inception in 2008, according to a November 2025 report. According to 2025 figures, for every dollar of direct investment, the protected area has generated $5.61 in revenue in sectors like eco-tourism, fisheries and manufacturing. 

So why do we hear so much about resource industries — and so little about the other facets of our economy, particularly those that protect our environments rather than degrade them? One reason could be the enormous sums spent by the oil and gas industry on lobbying politicians and advertising to the public — often with misleading claims that downplay the incontrovertible links between fossil fuels and the climate crisis. (And Canada just made it easier for them to greenwash their activities.)

Upholding First Nations rights within their own territories is worth doing for its own sake. But we should also remember a functional economy requires a functional environment. 

Floods, wildfires, droughts and heat waves cause preventable deaths and hundreds of millions in damages, hospital visits, evacuation costs and soaring insurance premiums. These events are not random; they are caused by climate change and the destruction of our landscapes. To protect and restore these ecosystems requires, in part, respecting and upholding the rights of the First Nations who look after them. 

In B.C. alone, Indigenous tourism generates more than $1.1 billion in economic activity each year, driven by Canadians and international visitors who value time in nature and want to experience the lands and waters stewarded by First Nations. Every year, over 1.2 million people visit Tofino, B.C., in Tla-o-qui-aht territory, many to explore the shaded old-growth forest trails and shorelines of the Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Parks. In Tofino, 127 businesses have signed on to voluntarily share revenue with the Tribal Parks stewards to support activities like Guardians programs and trail maintenance, in recognition of the economic value of a flourishing, protected ecosystem. 

Each decision made by governments, industry and individuals is shaping the future of the Canadian economy every day. It’s worth remembering we all have a stake in it. First Nations rejecting oil tankers in their waters are not hindering the national economy, but arguing for a different balance of priorities. There’s more than one way to build an economy.

We overvalue resource projects and underestimate their costs

Despite this, Canada’s vision for economic development seems narrow in scope; a selection of energy and natural resource projects. These tend to be pitched as windfall scenarios, but the economic benefits often fall far short of what’s promised. A 2024 study in the journal Facets, which analyzed the 27 mines in B.C. granted permits since 1997, found that 13 never began operating at all. Only 12 per cent of promised jobs ever materialized, and less than a quarter of predicted ore was actually mined. 

Eby announced on Jan. 21 the continuation of mining activities at Mount Milligan near Fort St. James, trumpeting the 574 “good, family-supporting jobs” that will be extended until the mine closes in 2035. But mining jobs, even “good” ones, end eventually, and all Canadians are often left to bear clean-up costs — which can range into the billions for mines like B.C.’s Elk Valley coal mine.

Meanwhile, the Great Bear Rainforest has been supporting 373 full-time jobs for 17 years, with no end in sight, while also protecting the environment.

Which sounds like the better economic bargain? Environment aside, a catastrophic spill prompted by lifting the oil tanker ban could threaten those jobs and destroy a profitable, sustainable piece of our economy. Is it really worth the risk? 

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.