In 2019, municipalities across Ontario declared a climate emergency. The backdrop was a groundswell of attention to global warming, including tens of thousands of people filling the streets around Ontario’s legislature in September, demanding urgent action on climate change.

The demonstration was part of the Global Week for Future, inspired by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future movement. Young people marched alongside families, seniors and environmental advocates. The crowd outside Queen’s Park in Toronto was so large that some demonstrators couldn’t hear the speakers addressing the rally.

Table of Contents

• Toronto: uphill battle on reducing building emissions, promoting active transportation
• Mississauga: possible rise in emissions as Ontario’s grid gets dirtier
• Brampton: torn up bike lanes, no published emissions reductions reports

Lyn Adamson, co-chair of the environmental advocacy group ClimateFast, spent months helping organize the demonstration. “It was something I’d never seen,” she said. “I’d never seen that kind of mobilization.”

Mississauga and Brampton had declared an emergency in June, while Toronto City Council joined the list the week after the march. In the country’s largest city, council called for accelerated action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and asked city staff to examine how Toronto could reach net-zero emissions by 2040.

Seven years later, municipalities across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area have introduced new climate policies, invested in energy-efficient buildings and expanded programs aimed at reducing emissions. But despite that progress, emissions are not falling quickly enough to meet many of their targets.

With Ontario’s municipal election approaching on Oct. 26, environmental advocates say the next four years will be critical in determining whether cities can turn their commitments into measurable results. And the term will take municipalities to 2030, a deadline attached to several major greenhouse gas reduction targets.

In Toronto, decisions about building emissions standards and retrofits, and transportation investments remain outstanding. Mississauga’s next council is expected to consider an updated emissions reduction plan in early 2027 and Brampton faces questions about how much progress it is actually making on its climate commitments.

And progress across the province has been slowed by the Ontario government stepping in to prevent cities and towns from instituting ambitious strategies it said could impede development. 

Here’s a look at some of the commitments and progress made by municipalities, as they welcome the next municipal council to take the helm.

Climate action hasn’t kept pace with promises

Greenhouse gas emissions across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area represent 46 per cent of Ontario’s emissions. They reached approximately 54.7 million tonnes in 2024, a modest increase of 1.1 per cent from the previous year, according to the latest carbon emissions inventory from the Toronto Atmospheric Fund.

Buildings accounted for 45 per cent of regional emissions, largely from natural gas used for heating and electricity generation. Transportation made up another 37 per cent.

Overall emissions remain far from where they need to be to reach net-zero targets that were developed in line with the United Nations and global scientists to stave off some of the worst effects of climate change.

The Atmospheric Fund, an agency of the City of Toronto, estimates the region would need reductions of approximately 11 per cent every year to meet its collective 2030 climate targets.

Gabriella Kalapos, executive director of Climate Action Partnership, said municipalities have made progress since 2019, particularly in understanding where emissions come from and identifying opportunities to reduce them. “It’s nowhere near the level of action that’s actually needed to respond to this climate emergency,” she said.

Toronto has strengthened its climate plans, but targets remain out of reach

For Adamson, Toronto’s climate commitments aren’t just about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They’re about making everyday life easier for residents, whether that’s because cycling is safe, public transit is reliable or utility bills are lower because homes use less energy.

She believes progress has been too slow.

Under its TransformTO climate strategy, the city has set a target of reducing community-wide emissions by 65 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030, and ultimately reach net-zero emissions by 2040.

Toronto acknowledges it is not on track to meet that goal. In 2023, the city released its most recent inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, finding community-wide emissions were just 35 per cent below 1990 levels. Buildings accounted for 55 per cent of emissions, followed by transportation at 36 per cent.

In an email to The Narwhal, James Nowlan, executive director of City of Toronto’s environment, climate and forestry division, wrote that buildings and transportation remain among the most challenging sources of emissions to address because many of the necessary changes extend beyond the city’s direct control.

Take the city’s multi-year battle with the provincial government to maintain some existing bike lanes and build more on main arteries of the city. Right now, the province is winning, having dispatched crews on a $48-million job to rip lanes out of major streets in the middle of the election campaign. 

Premier Doug Ford’s government has also clamped down on how municipalities can implement green building standards. It restricted municipalities from mandating any green building features that go beyond provincial requirements. This put the Toronto Green Standard, a framework that has shaped development in Canada’s largest city for more than 15 years, in the crosshairs.

The standard required developers to incorporate features — such as bicycle parking, electric-vehicle charging stations and green roofs — to reduce emissions and improve resilience to climate change. The province has argued that standardized development requirements can help speed up construction during a housing crisis.

Environmental advocates, however, say the changes undermine municipal authority, including the ability to address local climate priorities. Kalapos said municipal progress on energy-efficient development policies has been complicated by provincial intervention.

“If you don’t have a supportive framework for climate action at the provincial and federal level, municipalities are really hamstrung to be able to move forward on their targets,” she said. “We are not going to meet this climate change imperative off the property tax base.”

The city is still developing emissions standards that would see building owners gradually reduce emissions through upgrades and retrofits. But provincial legislation will prevent Toronto from making the changes mandatory.

“It’s all voluntary. There is no deadline for anything,” Adamson said, arguing that relying on voluntary measures makes it difficult to achieve the scale of change needed.

Still, cities are trying. In Toronto, a new TransformTO action plan outlines further measures to reduce emissions between now and 2030, including support for community-led initiatives.

The city budgeted more than $2 billion in 2026 for emissions-reduction initiatives, including ongoing support for a bike share program and household composting. 

In Mississauga, emissions are not falling fast enough

In neighbouring Mississauga, the city reports progress on 59 of the 89 actions outlined in its 2019 climate change action plan, a 10-year municipal roadmap aimed at reducing emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 and 80 per cent by 2050. The plan was adopted months after council declared a climate emergency in June 2019.

Only 13 of the actions are considered fully complete, standalone actions, such as developing a program that diverts dog waste from landfills and converts it to energy and a strategy on increasing urban agriculture. Another 46 items, like gradually replacing municipal vehicles with electric alternatives, are mostly complete, with work ongoing and possibly evolving.

Carrah Bullock, Mississauga’s supervisor of climate policy, said the original plan was designed to lay the groundwork for future climate action, but did not include ways to measure its direct impact on emissions. The city is now updating its climate plan to better track the reductions associated with individual initiatives.

Despite this progress, Mississauga acknowledges, like its neighbouring cities, that it is not on track to meet its 2030 emissions targets. In fact, preliminary 2025 data suggest that emissions may have been higher than 2024, due largely to issues that, once again, are in the provincial government’s hands. 

Ontario’s power grid has become less clean since 2021, when it was 94 per cent emissions-free. That number is now below 90 per cent, due largely to nuclear plants being taken offline for refurbishment. Having cancelled hundreds of renewable energy projects upon taking office in 2018, the Ford government has relied mainly on natural gas to replace them. The Atmospheric Fund reported that electricity-related emissions increased 28 per cent across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area in 2024 because of greater reliance on natural gas-fired generation.

The city has made progress on emissions reductions within its own buildings and vehicle fleet. Dianne Zimmerman, Mississauga’s environment manager, pointed to the introduction of a green standard for city-owned buildings, including a new fire station built to a net-zero standard. The city has also electrified municipal vehicles and equipment.

But reducing emissions from privately owned homes and commercial buildings remains a significant challenge. Bullock said a proposed community building retrofit program has been progressing more slowly than the city would like.

The city’s updated emissions reduction plan is expected to go before council in early 2027, followed by a separate climate resilience strategy focused on coping with extreme heat, storms and other effects of a warming planet.

Residents see both progress and setbacks in Brampton

David Laing, president and co-founder of the Brampton Environmental Alliance, regularly uses a bicycle for transportation. When Brampton began introducing cycling infrastructure in the years after declaring a climate emergency in 2019, he noticed the difference.

The improvements, he said, “made my life an awful lot easier and safer and more comfortable.”

But now, the city is reversing course, removing some of those bike lanes to make way for cars — such as on Howden Boulevard in the city’s Westgate neighbourhood — leaving him frustrated with what he sees as inconsistent decisions about transportation and climate action.

According to The Atmospheric Fund, transportation produced approximately 1.81 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in Brampton in 2024, accounting for nearly half the city’s total.

It’s one example of why the city’s progress on community-wide emissions has been in question.

In 2019, Brampton released its community energy and emissions reduction plan, aiming to cut community-wide emissions by 50 per cent below 2016 levels by 2041, and at least 80 per cent by 2050.

Since then, it has taken steps to electrify public transit, including a $4-billion partnership in 2025 with U.K.-based company Zenobē to transition to as many as 1,000 electric buses over the next decade. And the city has developed an updated environmental master plan, subsidized building retrofits and launched a program to help local businesses reduce their energy use.

But the results of those efforts haven’t been published. Laing said the city needs to make it easier for residents to understand which climate commitments have been completed, how much money has been spent and whether emissions are actually declining.

Without that information, there’s little to keep city administration — and incoming mayors and councillors — accountable.

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 article was produced in collaboration with the Toronto Star.

Every election, I consider whether I’m voting for a candidate — or against one. My dream is to hopefully fill in the bubble beside the name of someone exciting. Instead, I often find myself drearily choosing someone okay (I guess) to block someone I can’t stand. The upcoming Toronto mayoral election is a case in point.

The two front-runners each have a caricaturish portrait of the city. The incumbent, Olivia Chow, lives in a shimmery mirage where Care Bear stares transform traffic jams into affordable homes. Her challenger, Brad Bradford, lives in an apocalyptic hellhole where rats keep trying to gnaw his leg off. The rest of us watch as this once-shiny city dulls, made sticky by a spiderweb of problems. We need sophisticated, strategic ideas, and have been given a choice between cops and school lunches. 

Is this really all we have to work with? 

No, actually. There will be 53 mayoral candidates’ names on the ballot on Oct. 26. But Torontonians tend to ignore the so-called fringe, perhaps burned by eras when kooky or frightening candidates got too much airtime. We rarely meet, never mind evaluate, let alone choose, a promising unknown. 

Hoping to find a bubble worth filling, I went in search of options — and actually found a little hope. Before I name names, though, here’s how I did it. 

First, I used the Toronto Star’s Vote Compass tool, which showed how my takes on the city’s challenges, costs and priorities compared to candidates’ positions. I used that to narrow down which platforms to read in The Local’s candidate tracker, clicking through to websites of those who seemed serious and promising. 

It wasn’t quick, but given the threats to democracy from misinformation, shrinking attention spans, dark money, competing crises and plain old apathy, the effort seemed worth it. Then again, I get to count this as work. Not everyone has the time or ability to do it. And Toronto has a type of electoral system that is “really challenging for voters,” according to Jack Lucas, a political science professor at the University of Calgary. 

Lucas is co-director of the Canadian Municipal Barometer, an ongoing study of local government. One of his interests is the role and value of political parties at the municipal level. In some provinces, municipal candidates can run with party affiliation, as they do federally or provincially. In Ontario, including Toronto, each candidate — and winner — is a lone wolf. 

Theoretically, this discourages hard divides between “conservatives” and “progressives,” since councillors vote independently on every issue, allowing them to disagree or join forces from one cause to the next. Lucas says polarization is happening anyway, though, which the cops vs. school lunches showdown suggests is true. 

Meanwhile, voters are left adrift in a sea of unknown candidates. All alone, they need to seek out and analyze information on not just policy, but integrity, experience and the ability to actually get the job done. Lucas believes a party system helps voters discern who’s worth their time. Without them, he says, it’s not surprising people gravitate towards known quantities. 

I’m not quite sold — to me, independence and coalition-building are unique, important aspects of municipal governance we should try to strengthen, not abandon. Also, parties can be risk-averse and boring, stoking stereotypes and prejudice. But Lucas did sway me when he said the muscle of party machinery can help new candidates find their feet. “It’s a lonely enterprise,” he said, “and if you don’t already have a network of support behind you, it can be really challenging to break through.” That, plus parties have money. 

Which brings me to mayoral candidate Laura Dean, who has raised $25,000 for her campaign. It’s more than she expected, she told me. It’s also oodles less than the nearly $1.6 million Chow spent in 2023. It’s not enough to buy even one ad between Blue Jays’ innings, Dean said, let alone the back-to-back spots Bradford is running.

Dean has spent more than a decade advising Ontario municipalities on land use (including housing starts!) as a partner at a Bay Street law firm. It’s a career she chose after time spent at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the now-defunct provincial climate secretariat. That last bit is what made this environmental journalist give her a call. 

“When this election cycle came up, I was really shocked by the tone and just the quality of the discourse — it’s so poor. And, more, extremely polarizing,” Dean said about deciding to run. “The Canadian public so desperately needs more options and good quality conversation.” 

Dean isn’t starry-eyed about her prospects and that’s fine. Plenty of worthwhile candidates need to try and try again. The point is, not every unknown is kooky or scary. Many are worthwhile, and with dozens of options, it’s bad practice to let polls decide front-runners (and debate invitees) before the race even starts. If a wider choice sounds appealing, Dean and other non-celebrity candidates will headline an “alternative” mayoral debate at City Hall on Oct. 20.

Dean said the enthusiasm she’s received has her already considering her options for 2030. While many people say they’re glad she’s running, she said, they aren’t ready to fill her bubble just yet. Torontonians are practiced in voting for the person they consider okay (I guess) as they try to block the candidate they can’t stand. Maybe next time, we’ll believe we deserve better.

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 leaders of B.C.’s three main political parties spent nearly two hours on Oct. 14 vying to be the province’s next premier. BC NDP Leader David Eby, Conservative Leader Lorne Doerkson and Green Leader Emily Lowan faced more than a dozen questions each from moderator Shachi Kurl during the only debate of the election campaign.

Not one of those questions focused on environmental issues or climate change. Nor did any of the leaders question each other about their proposed environmental policies during the open debate portions of the broadcast.In fact, the only leader to mention the climate crisis was Lowan as she introduced herself to the audience. “I am the only leader on this stage that feels the decisions being made in the legislature, especially as it relates to the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis,” Lowan said, claiming she is the only one of the three party leaders who “has worked a minimum-wage job in the past decade.”

The lack of discussion about climate issues in the debate marked a continuation of an election campaign that has been focused on affordability issues. The NDP is promising to hike taxes on top income earners, cap prices on groceries and gas and freeze car insurance rates for three years.

The BC Conservatives are promising to cut income taxes for everyone, slash regulations in a bid to spur economic development and boost funding for police.

Both parties are promising billions in spending on health care and infrastructure without a lot of detail on where that money will come from. The province currently faces a deficit of nearly $14 billion. 

Meanwhile, the BC Green Party’s 2026 campaign is also focusing heavily on kitchen-table issues. Lowan has proposed a wealth tax the party estimates would bring in billions of dollars that could be used to improve housing affordability and health care access.

The top concerns for voters are either cost of living and affordability or jobs and the economy, with health care and housing typically rounding out the top three. Fourteen per cent of respondents to a recent Angus Reid poll put environment and climate change as their most important issue when considering who to vote for in this election. Just three per cent of respondents told pollster Research Co. the environment is the most important issue facing British Columbia today.

Compare that to October 2019, when Angus Reid found climate change was the top issue among Canadian voters.

What politicians are saying — or not saying — is likely tied to what voters have been telling pollsters lately.

Eby announced his party’s climate commitments over the Thanksgiving weekend, 19 days into the campaign. Most of them are already government policy or continuations of the NDP’s previous commitments, including protecting 30 per cent of the province’s land base by 2030. The Green Party put out its climate platform on Oct. 10, which includes a promise to halt new fossil fuel projects and end “subsidies, tax preferences and public financing that encourage the expansion of fossil-fuel production.”

The BC Conservatives have yet to mention climate policy during the campaign, except to state “unrealistic climate objectives” have stymied B.C.’s ability to launch a liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. 

So why aren’t climate issues as prominent as they once were for many voters? 

Voting in a polycrisis

Voter priorities have shifted even from this summer, as wildfires cast a pall of smoke across much of B.C. and climate change was front of mind for a substantial portion of B.C. voters. In July, Angus Reid found 25 per cent of B.C. respondents listed climate change as their top concern, putting the issue in third place behind cost of living and health care.

And there are plenty of issues for British Columbians to fret over these days, Jamie Lawson, an associate professor of political science at the University of Victoria told The Narwhal. Many voters are experiencing what academics call a polycrisis. That’s when multiple crises are happening at the same time, Lawson added, citing the examples of democratic decline, climate change, a cost of living crunch and the threat of artificial intelligence eating into employment opportunities.

“The thing about a polycrisis is that it implies that pressing problems go well beyond your top three,” he said. 

“I think at the moment, a lot of people who do indeed care about the climate are faced with making choices. … They may be no less concerned about climate, but we might be in a case of trying to save the furniture.”

Economic anxieties tend to crowd out worries about climate change, according to Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia who studies climate and energy policy. That’s partly because issues like the cost of groceries and gas are immediate and personal, while the impacts of climate change can seem less personally affecting.

“People know how much they’re paying for eggs, but nobody knows if their house is going to be the one that will burn down,” Harrison said. “There’s this uncertainty about who will bear those risks.”

Meanwhile, some politicians have leaned into the idea that addressing one crisis at a time is the best approach, Iglika Ivanova, senior economist and co-executive director at BC Policy Solutions, said. 

“People are worried about their jobs and about prices, so we need to deal with these immediate concerns,” Ivanova said of the way top politicians have been framing the current moment. “Once we sort that out, only then can we look at climate change.”

The political tendency to focus on the short term is short-sighted, she argued.

“It almost seems like they’re looking for an economic initiative that would generate money as soon as possible, rather than taking a longer-term view on what kind of an economy are we building?”

Lawson sees the federal government’s push to fast-track major projects across the country looming large over the B.C. election.

“I think the way the NDP and the Conservatives [in B.C.] have really pressed for this accelerated extraction reflects the way in which the Liberal Party federally has gone flat out for maximizing and diversifying that kind of extractivist economy,” he said. 

The NDP, for instance, has pledged to double B.C.’s critical mineral exports, while the Conservatives are promising broad deregulation to make it faster and easier to build projects like LNG facilities.

‘It’s so short-sighted,’ economist says of cutting climate policies out of B.C. election campaign

While the Conservatives might not want to talk about climate policy, Harrison thinks the NDP stands to benefit when voters are thinking about climate issues.

“Historically, climate and environment have been an issue that the NDP has had an advantage over the Conservatives on,” she said. “I think it’s reasonable for climate-concerned voters to say, ‘Tell us what you’re going to do on this issue that we care a lot about and that reflects a crisis that is only getting worse.’ ”

On the other hand, after years of not living up to some of its promises — climate-focused and otherwise — the NDP may have trouble convincing some voters the party will do as it promised if it forms government again. During the 2024 election campaign, the NDP promised to bring in a cap on oil and gas emissions, finish implementing recommendations from the 2020 old-growth forest strategic review and deliver a $1,000 grocery rebate — none of which happened in the past two years.

“Will some of the most climate-concerned voters vote again for the NDP because they fear that the Conservatives will be worse?” Harrison wondered. “Will they vote Green or will they stay home?”

Plenty of British Columbians may be fed up with the NDP but Lawson noted the Conservatives have gone through a lot of upheaval in the past couple of years, including the recent resignation of former leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay just 113 days after taking the reins of the party and only two days before Eby made the snap election call.

He also cautioned governments do not always do what they said they would while on the campaign trail.

“The B.C. party system is in flux and we’ve never, in recent years, had platforms that gave reliable insight into what governments do afterwards.”

Regardless of who forms B.C.’s next government, climate and environment should be central to its policies, Ivanova argued.

“Climate change is impacting us already and it will only impact us more,” she said. “It has immediate costs today and then there’s also health issues around wildfire smoke and all sorts of things that I think we ignore at our peril.”

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.

There was a brief, telling moment when Prime Minister Mark Carney was onstage at a Calgary Chamber of Commerce event last year, following the announcement of a memorandum of understanding with the Alberta government for a new “private sector constructed and financed pipeline” to the West Coast. 

Deborah Yedlin, the CEO of the chamber, mentioned the agreement’s stipulation: the project needed a private proponent rather than public funding. Then she said the project required “derisking.”“Are you saying there’s no room for the government to derisk something for a period of time in order to attract private capital that’s needed for a project like that?” she asked Carney. In other words, how far was Carney willing to go to protect industry from losses?Carney listed off moves his government was making, including regulatory clarity, tax incentives and loan guarantees to move the project forward. And then he said: “In essence, the Asian pipeline will be a private sector project …”

That one word, essence, bore considerable weight. 

So too did the timing of the Oct. 1 announcement that the pipeline — now known as Pacific Link — would be the first project of national interest listed under the federal government’s sweeping Building Canada Act. It comes just over two weeks before Alberta holds a referendum on whether to hold an independence referendum, as well as a slew of questions aimed mostly at immigrants. 

From the beginning, the pipeline plan was a political one, based on a calculus that can be hard to understand outside of Alberta, where decades of government and industry messaging has succeeded in tightly weaving oil and gas into the province’s culture. 

Never has that narrative been pushed harder than by the United Conservative Party government, first under former premier Jason Kenney and now amplified even more under Premier Danielle Smith. 

Having directly linked the future of the country with deregulation for the oil and gas sector, Smith now faces the headwinds of that rhetoric in the form of a burgeoning separatist movement. It’s one she has aided to protect herself from an influential secessionist base in her party. 

It’s a situation Carney has recognized and attempted to shape, acquiescing to Alberta’s demands in an effort to shore up a united front as threats from the United States grow more stark. 

The prime minister might have promised Canadians a “private sector constructed and financed pipeline” in last fall’s memorandum. But it was clear from the beginning he was willing to pay a premium to achieve peace. 

How Alberta’s politics of wealth and alienation fuelled the Pacific Link promise

After their first meeting in March of last year, Smith threatened Carney with an “unprecedented national unity crisis” if he did not respond to a list of demands almost entirely focused on boosting the oil and gas sector. 

It was part and parcel of a wider campaign to link Alberta’s political and economic fortunes more tightly with fossil fuels, including moves to designate emissions data as critical infrastructure to prevent the federal government from accessing it and put up regulatory and economic hurdles to block renewable energy development. 

Smith’s actions are part of a long history of resentment that stretches back as far as the creation of the province, when the federal government denied Alberta control over its natural resources, a move that was later reversed. 

There’s an entire mythology of eastern Canadian domination built up around the National Energy Program introduced by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the early 1980s, which still resonates with separatists and mainstream conservatives alike. In this century, the climate actions of his son Justin Trudeau inflamed a new sense of subjugation in the oil patch. 

Those resentments and mythologies have been curated by successive Alberta governments as an easy way to rally Albertans to their cause and help cover up internal failures, particularly when it comes to budget crashes. And now it has reached a fever pitch. 

Carney, a veteran of Brexit and big brain amidst big brain money makers, recognized the weight of Smith’s threat and an especially restless Alberta, particularly as the geopolitical landscape shifted under his feet. He wasted no time in wooing her, and her province. 

He has proven willing to deregulate and slash emissions programs and targets to help industry. Now, he’s opening the federal government’s hefty purse to buy peace. The pipeline will cost billions, without any promise that price will be enough to please Smith’s government and the powers it has unleashed. 

Pacific Link pipeline promise is rushing to meet a very specific moment

Pacific Link is moving fast, because it’s meant to meet this specific moment: oil prices are high, Alberta separation is occupying vital political real estate, and a trade war with the U.S. is both threatening Canadian well-being and galvanizing political will for big risks and fast action. 

In this rush, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that many important details still aren’t finalized — such as the route, financing and oilsands companies meeting requirements for a massive carbon capture and storage project.

All of this makes meeting this specific moment difficult, to say the least. It will be years before the pipeline is online. 

There are also serious questions about investing billions of taxpayer dollars into a project for a sector facing possible reductions in demand and a global shift away from the uncertainty of oil markets. Not to mention concerns over the impacts of increased emissions and the reduced ambitions for carbon capture. 

Despite this announcement, the referendum will still take place. The provincial government is spending millions to tell Albertans to send Ottawa a message and stand up for a more sovereign province. Its list of demands remains, even if Smith is playing nice with Carney for the time being.

The willingness of the Alberta government to act in good faith is also questionable. Only days after it signed last fall’s memorandum with the federal government, it went ahead with changes which undermined its industrial carbon price that it promised to strengthen in the agreement. 

That’s the same memorandum containing the broken promise of a “private sector constructed and financed pipeline.” It all suggests Donald Trump isn’t the only Western leader who signs agreements in pencil. 

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.

Canada’s large oil companies are raking in record profits during an energy crisis.

We’ve been here before — but unlike last time, Ottawa isn’t prodding the industry to use more of the money to clean up its act. In some ways, it’s even volunteering to pick up the tab.

The last time was just four years ago, when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led to Western sanctions on Russian oil and fears about global energy supply. The price of oil shot skyward, and large Canadian oil companies reaped the benefits, taking in billions of dollars in windfall profits.

The oil and gas industry is the largest source of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, which cause climate change that scientists say has been driving major heat waves and wildfires across the country this summer, destroying communities and upending lives.

Yet instead of using its windfall during the Russian invasion to invest heavily in non-emitting energy sources, or to widely deploy technology to decarbonize its operations, the industry began funnelling a larger proportion of its revenues to shareholders, while a group of oilsands companies went to governments asking them to cover much of the cost of their proposed emissions projects.

The federal environment and climate change minister at the time, Steven Guilbeault, pushed back, suggesting oil companies needed to put their money where their mouth is when it came to their own publicly stated environmental goals.

“As Canadians see those profits, we need to see reinvestment into cleaner energy instead of share buybacks,” Guilbeault said in a video posted online in October 2022.

Share buybacks are when companies use cash to buy their own shares back from investors. It’s a different way of giving money to them than dividends, which distribute earnings to shareholders.

The Iran war, that began this February, is again leading to big profits for Canada’s oil industry, which are again being directed in part to shareholders.

The conversation has reignited calls for a windfall profits tax on the oil and gas industry, something more than 60 unions and civil society organizations have been calling for.

In a survey this May by Liaison Strategies, 66 per cent of a random sample of 1,526 Canadians reached by landline and cell phone also supported a tax on oil and gas excess profits, with the revenues going to help lower energy bills.

Elbows Up For Climate, which represents almost 300 mayors, councillors and local officials from across Canada advocating for national environmental projects, is one of the groups calling for a windfall tax.

Former Toronto mayor David Miller is the co-chair of Elbows Up For Climate alongside former Montreal mayor Valérie Plante. Miller told The Narwhal such a tax makes sense given the global fossil fuel industry spent decades obscuring the truth about climate change and lobbying governments to roll back climate action, and so is “in many ways responsible” for delaying the economy’s transition to clean energy.

“We are in a frightening summer from wildfire smoke. The damage yet again will be in the billions, and the question is, who should pay for that? Should it be the general public?” Miller, now managing director of a global network of mayors called the C40 Centre, said. “Or should it be the people, the entities, that are causing the problem?”

“The entities that are causing the problem — which is climate change, that’s what’s making the wildfires so bad — are the fossil fuel companies, and they should pay for the damage. It’s a user-pay kind of principle, and because of the profits they’re making as a result of the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran, it’s a very appropriate moment.”

Oil companies argue they already pay significant taxes as well as royalties, which are separate payments that companies make to the province that owns the resources. In 2024-25, Alberta took in $17.2 billion in royalties from the oilsands.

But the Vancouver-based Centre for Future Work has argued that royalties collect “only a small fraction” of the increased revenues from higher oil prices. In 2022, they found, oil and gas profits jumped almost three times as much as the increase in royalties.

Applying a new windfall tax on oil profits today could generate between $18 billion and $46 billion over the next year, depending on the tax rate and how much of a company’s profits it applies to, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The Narwhal asked Environment and Climate Change Minister Julie Dabrusin’s office whether she believes, like Guilbeault did, that oil companies should be spending more on emissions reductions, and what she thought of a windfall profits tax.

“Oil and gas companies have an important role to play in driving down Canada’s emissions,” Dabrusin’s director of communications Chris Zhou responded in an emailed statement.

Zhou said the government was focused on “durable, unifying solutions that will deliver sustained emissions reductions over the long term,” including restrictions on methane, a greenhouse gas, in the oil and gas sector, as well as the industrial carbon pricing system.

Oil companies bringing in record-breaking profits amidst Iran war

The Iran war has led to the intermittent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint between the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea that one-fifth of the world’s oil is shipped through.

It created the “largest supply disruption in history,” according to the International Energy Agency, and sent oil prices higher again. The higher price translated to big profits for the world’s largest oil companies, and those in Canada have been no exception.

Earlier this month, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, one of the country’s largest oil and gas companies, reported $4.5 billion in profit in the second quarter, which covers April to June. That result was “the strongest in the history of the company,” Chief Financial Officer Victor Clinton Darel said.

The company returned $2.4 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. This year, he added, was the 26th consecutive year of dividend increases.

The record results followed a report from Cenovus, one of Canada’s large oilsands companies, of a $2.9-billion profit in the second quarter, its “best quarterly financial result ever,” president and CEO Jon McKenzie said. Cenovus plans to increase shareholder returns, and sent $1.4 billion to them in the second quarter.

“We would never apologize nor take credit for a higher commodity price environment, but the key is to run well while it lasts and capitalize on the opportunity,” McKenzie said.

A third oilsands firm, Suncor, recently posted a $3.7-billion profit, and returned $1.7 billion to shareholders — it too said it plans to spend more money giving cash to investors in return for their shares.

Imperial Oil, a Canadian firm majority-owned by one of the world’s largest oil companies, ExxonMobil, posted a quarterly profit of $2.2 billion. John Whelan, the chairman, president and CEO, said Imperial has grown its annual dividend for 31 years.

In addition to reaping rewards from the higher price of oil, Canadian companies have also been creating more of it. Oil production hit a new record last year in Canada, and crude oil production hit the highest volume this May since comparable records began in 2016, according to Statistics Canada.

This year, Cenovus expects to join the club of companies worldwide that can produce, on their own, the equivalent of a million barrels of oil per day, on average. Only one other Canadian company can do that, Canadian Natural, which also said it had hit a new quarterly production record.

Oil execs praise Alberta deal that taxpayers could be on the hook for

During their earnings calls this summer, executives praised Prime Minister Mark Carney’s deal with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith — in which the federal government has hinted it’s prepared to spend significant public dollars.

Canadian Natural, Cenovus, Suncor and Imperial Oil are four of the five members of the Oil Sands Alliance, formerly known as the Pathways Alliance, which signed a trilateral memorandum of understanding with the federal and Alberta governments that envisions a new oil pipeline to the West Coast, to be filled with increased levels of oil production, as well as a new emissions reduction project in the oilsands called Pathways, which will rely in part on carbon capture technology.

Ottawa says two government-owned corporations will own most of the oil pipeline and one of them will develop and run it. The only private-sector involvement announced so far is a pipeline company signing a non-binding agreement to take a 10 per cent interest during construction, with possibly another 10 per cent interest when the pipeline begins operating.

Pressed by CBC News to reveal how much federal money would be involved in building the new pipeline, Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson said that while he didn’t have “the numbers in front of me right now,” the cost to build an earlier oil pipeline — the Trans Mountain expansion project, which cost between $30 and $40 billion — was a “reasonable thing to look at.”

The government’s deal with Alberta also includes a commitment from Ottawa to “offer financing or support mechanisms” supporting the operating costs of carbon capture and storage projects.

It’s hard to precisely tally up how much this financing and support might cost Canadians, but the government has already committed billions of dollars in the form of carbon capture tax credits, funding for carbon contracts and other related research and development efforts.

At the same time, it’s unclear how much of their own money oil companies are willing to spend on the industry’s infrastructure — whether that’s to move more oil, or to lower their emissions.

Companies tight-lipped about environmental progress, vocal on environmental regulations

Many major oil companies have cited Trudeau-era changes to the federal Competition Act as a reason why they cannot publish information on their environmental performance on their website or in corporate disclosure reports.

The changes introduced an anti-greenwashing requirement for businesses, ensuring they backed up claims about protecting the environment or tackling climate change with evidence. (While the Carney government removed a rule that required this evidence to conform to internationally recognized standards, it left the broader requirement in place.)

Suncor’s 2025 report on sustainability says the company aims to “reduce the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of our base business,” but notes the report intentionally does not contain any “environmental content or data” due to the law. Cenovus says it does not publish any information on its website regarding its environmental performance or targets, for the same reason.

Imperial Oil’s website says it does not publish “an active representation” of its environmental performance although it mentions efforts in “lower-emission fuels,” renewable diesel, lithium and carbon capture technology. Canadian Natural’s website points to reclamation projects, like tree planting, at its oilsands sites.

The four companies, as well as the Oil Sands Alliance, did not respond to requests from The Narwhal for how much money they have spent over the last year on emissions reductions projects, or their opinion of a windfall profits tax.

They have been outspoken, however, about how environmental policy is affecting their bottom lines.

​McKenzie, at Cenovus, said in June that a new oil pipeline to the West Coast could not be ⁠financed by the ​private sector because of Canada’s industrial carbon pricing system. “Industry has been clear that the industrial carbon tax is insidious and it should be revoked,” he said.

On the July earnings call, ​after announcing record profits, McKenzie again described the industrial carbon pricing system as an “uncompetitive carbon tax that uniquely burdens Canadian industry.”

But he praised the Canada-Alberta deal, saying it “creates a framework for governments and industry to work together on production growth, emissions reduction and expanded market access.”

Similarly, Scott Stauth, president of Canadian Natural, said the agreement was a “positive first step” and said it would “benefit all of Canada by providing more jobs, combined with social and economic benefits to our country.”

“It’s a very different mood and tenure today than it has been in the past. We’re encouraged by that,” Suncor president and CEO Rich Kruger said about the Alberta deal, although he also said there was still “a lot of work to do.”

Oil Sands Alliance President Kendall Dilling said in a statement posted July 13 that the trilateral deal was a “framework that is positive for the oilsands industry and provides a step forward to help enable production growth and to advance the Pathways project.”

“It helps meet our shared vision to grow Canadian oil production and benefit Canadians across the country,” he said.

Windfall profits tax could help offset affordability crisis, advocates say

For his part, Carney posted a video online in June suggesting the world needed more of Canada’s fossil fuels, as a result of the Iran War.

“The hard truth is that we don’t control the price of oil, so what we’re doing is helping Canadians through tough times in the short term,” the prime minister explained.

The government suspended the federal gas tax for the summer as an affordability measure, Carney said. But he also argued that addressing global “energy security” means ensuring Canada supplies the world with as much oil and gas “as possible.”

While he acknowledged this “will mean that our emissions will be higher in the next few years than they were projected to be under the previous government’s plan,” he said Canada “can’t afford to restrain the growth of an important part of our energy mix, oil and gas, to meet a short term goal.”

Carney also claimed Canada’s oil would be “produced responsibly and with a clear focus on lowering emissions over time.”

For Elbows Up For Climate, though, the fact remains that carbon pollution from fossil fuels is directly and indirectly the cause of tens of billions of dollars in damages from climate-driven extreme weather, Miller said.

Annual insured losses reached $37 billion between 2016 and 2025, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

“It’s quite remarkable and eye-opening when you look at [insurance] statistics, and those are happening because of the exploitation of fossil fuels,” Miller said.

“Expanding oil and gas production puts more Canadians at risk of extreme weather, extreme heat and other climate-related disasters. We actually can’t afford those disasters.”

Several groups like the Green Budget Coalition, Canadians for Tax Fairness, Seniors For Climate Action Now, For Our Kids and 350.org have also submitted budgetary recommendations to the House of Commons finance committee that endorse a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies.

Thomas Green, senior manager of climate solutions at the David Suzuki Foundation, part of the Green Budget Coalition, pointed out that the United Kingdom has its own windfall tax.

Between 2022 and 2025, the UK’s Energy Profits Levy raised 9.1 billion pound sterling, or $17 billion at today’s exchange rate.

The coalition wants to see a new levy on oil and gas companies linked to when oil prices exceed certain thresholds — indexed to inflation and periodically reviewed — and for the money to be allocated toward affordability and climate action measures.

“These profits come at the expense of affordability for everyday Canadians,” Green told The Narwhal.

“A windfall profits tax would at least rectify some of the injustice that we see right now.”

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

• Research published in the The Journal of Wildlife Management highlights an important gap in translocation mitigation practices: whether species survive their relocation is not tracked in B.C.
• Translocation mitigation is when plants and animals are moved from one location to another in advance of development. B.C. has the largest proportion of at-risk amphibians, which are frequently relocated for industry.
• As B.C. gears up for a number of major projects, scientists worry about mounting impacts on vulnerable species.

“We all loved frogs growing up, then we forgot about them,” Megan Winand says. Now, the conservation biologist is hoping to remind B.C. of their existence — and how they’re impacted by industry in the province. She contributed to a study published in The Journal of Wildlife Management earlier this year, looking into the effectiveness of translocation mitigation, or the practice of moving animals to new locations to make way for development. 

Between 2019 and 2022, B.C. issued 629 translocation mitigation permits. The review found that 227 of them included reptiles and amphibians, with most of those projects happening in the South Coast region.

The review found over five million reptiles and amphibians have been relocated in B.C., most commonly for pipeline and culvert developments. Winand has worked on some of those projects. 

“I spent a lot of time questioning whether what I was doing was actually effective, if I was truly saving all of these amphibians from the harm that was being caused by development,” Winand says.

Translocation can be difficult for wildlife because successfully establishing in a new environment is never guaranteed. Research has identified several risks, including stress, increased mortality, increased movement due to homing behaviour, disease transmission and genetic concerns.

With no legal requirement to track if species survive their relocation in B.C., Winand and others decided to start tracking data themselves. 

In collaboration with provincial government scientists, the Martin Conservation Decisions Lab based out of the University of British Columbia published their findings in April. 

In a province like British Columbia, salmon, orcas and bears often make headlines — but amphibians are incredible indicators of the environment and health of an ecosystem.

“I truly believe amphibians are canaries of the wetland coal mine,” Winand said.

The saying “canary in the coal mine” originates in the mining industry, where early miners used canaries to detect toxic gases.

A 2023 paper from the Climate Change Resource Centre says amphibians are similarly sensitive indicators of ecological changes, due to their “moist, permeable skin” and their important position in the centre of many food webs. 

“Amphibians especially, despite the fact that they are so important … they are extremely vulnerable,” Winand said.

B.C. has the largest proportion of at-risk amphibians across Canada. Around the world, 41 per cent of amphibians and reptiles are facing extinction.

One is the northern leopard frog, which declined in the 1970s. Their vulnerability to extinction prompted the province to create a specialized northern leopard frog recovery team in 2001.

Male tadpole numbers have slowly increased thanks to translocation efforts: while only 19 have been documented in recent years, that represents an improvement over the sporadic one or two male tadpoles recorded prior to 2010. 

Another endangered species is the Oregon spotted frog. The long-legged friends used to roam from northern California into southwestern B.C., but have declined drastically. Only a few hundred frogs remained in 1999, prompting the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada to give the amphibian its first-ever emergency listing. Populations in California have gone extinct, while an estimated 364 frogs remained in B.C. in 2025. 

Climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, disease and development are all impacting these animals. 

And while B.C. has taken extra measures to step up conservation during projects by relocating all species during a development, outcomes are still not monitored, making the effectiveness of these initiatives unknown.

Translocation adopted during development for 2010 Olympics, but now experts call for reversal

In a paper published in Conservation Biology, 59 translocation projects were reviewed from around the world. The paper found “mitigation translocations have not achieved their potential as an effective applied science,” because long-term impact to receipt ecosystems were not addressed in the data samples, and metapopulations were not addressed either.

Most species exist within a metapopulation, linked together by the same landscape. According to the Government of Canada, “when disturbances occur in a habitat patch, there is an effect on that particular population, and there could be effects on other populations that are linked to it through dispersal or the broad metapopulation that occurs at the landscape scale.” 

Another paper published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, about fresh water fish and mussels, acknowledges the practice as a last resort, stating, “Ultimately, mitigation translocation is performed when no other options remain for preventing the imminent loss of individuals at their natal location.”

The push for translocation mitigation in B.C. was born out of the 2010 Winter Olympics, from public pressure to preserve wetland habitat during improvements to the Sea to Sky highway, which connects Vancouver and Whistler. 

Sixteen years later, amphibian and reptile lovers are calling on the province to avoid relocating species whenever possible, to invest in habitat creation or restoration projects and to enforce transparent reporting after species are relocated. 

There are several examples of habitat restoration projects that have supported amphibians in B.C. On Salt Spring Island, the Stqeeye’ Learning Society is restoring native vegetation and wetland to improve conditions for wildlife, including amphibians, at Xwaaqw’um (Burgoyne Bay). 

Near Tofino, Parks Canada and the Raincoast Education Society installed amphibian crossing tunnels and fencing along Highway 4, to reduce road mortality and improve habitat connectivity.

In an email to The Narwhal, B.C.’s Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship said that “long-term survival and population outcomes following relocation would require multi-year studies, specialized monitoring methods and significant resources.”

“While it is not always feasible to employ long-term tracking, it is within this process that appropriate risk management takes place,” the ministry wrote. 

“We need to have proper monitoring and research in place to better the outcomes, or at least understand the outcomes, because currently we don’t,” Winand said. 

And as Canada embarks on an ambitious slate of major projects, Winand says that reptiles and amphibians face mounting risks of fragmented landscapes and loss of habitat. To her, the path forward is clear.

“We really need to push to avoid translocation,” she said.

Updated on July 15, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. PT: This story has been updated to correct the names of scientific journals. The study on translocation mitigation was published in The Journal of Wildlife Management, not in The Wildlife Society. Additionally, the paper reviewing 59 translocation projects was published in Conservation Biology, not by the National Library of Medicine.

Updated July 17, 9:45 a.m. PT: This story has been updated to correct the number of translocation mitigation permits related to amphibians and reptiles. It is 227, not 229.

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

Summary

• The Alberta government is hoping to attract $100 billion worth of data centres to the province over the next four years. If built, the data centres would require enormous amounts of electricity to operate.
• With a cap on how much electricity data centres can purchase from the provincial grid, most will have to generate their own power by burning natural gas, a fossil fuel.
• A global surge in demand for natural gas plant infrastructure is driving up costs and extending wait-lists, calling into question how realistic Alberta’s data centre ambitions are.

The Alberta government has big ambitions for AI data centres, but those dreams will have to contend with the harsh reality of a heated global competition for electricity. 

Around the world, there is a shortage of turbines used in natural gas power plants, as more and more electricity generation is built to feed hungry data centres. Estimates for wait times to obtain the critical components are now upwards of five years. Prices have also increased dramatically. 

That has serious implications for Alberta’s plan to attract $100 billion worth of data centres over the next four years, not only in terms of how quickly the facilities can be built, but also at what cost. 

As if to drive the point home, the province joined private industry on July 2 for the announcement of the $4.6 billion Greenlight natural gas power plant, which is 2.6 times more expensive than a similar sized power plant completed by the same company two years ago. That plant will feed electricity to a $15 billion Meta data centre.

“We’re definitely seeing the impact of that turbine supply crunch,” Will Noel, senior electricity analyst with the Pembina Institute, says. 

These power plants burn natural gas, a source of the potent greenhouse gas methane, to spin turbines that generate electricity. Natural gas power generation accounts for approximately 77 per cent of Alberta’s electricity grid.

The turbine shortage comes on the heels of the province’s overhaul of its electricity market, a move that has stalled power plant investment as companies wait for more certainty before committing. It also follows the government’s crackdown on renewable power generation, which decimated the market for wind and solar in Alberta.

Data centre developers face lengthy waits and a highly competitive process if they want to connect to Alberta’s grid, but can move quickly if they build their own power supply — which the grid operator requires to be natural gas, at least for now. 

The operator, in response to questions from The Narwhal, said that’s because developers must be able to meet their power demand at all times.

“Renewables and stand-alone storage are currently excluded because of weather dependency and duration limitations,” a spokesperson said by email. “As of now, they are not qualified to reliably offset a data centre’s around-the-clock draw the way dispatchable gas generation can.”

New technologies could change that, according to the operator. 

If the proposed data centres don’t already have their turbines ordered, it’s going to be a long wait. 

Noel says we don’t actually know how many of the 41 data centre centre proposals in Alberta as of July 7 have finalized designs and parts on order. It’s also not known if any will eventually connect to the grid. 

“This is obviously speculation,” he says, “but I imagine most of these data centres don’t have turbines ordered.”

The global turbine shortage

Across the world, but particularly in the U.S., data centres are being built at a furious pace. That, along with a broader turn to electrification and production challenges, is creating a bottleneck for turbines and additional power plant components. 

A report from Bloomberg says the cost of building a natural gas plant in the U.S. increased 66 per cent between 2023 and 2025, while the time it takes to complete construction has increased 23 per cent in the same time period. 

The pressure to build and the lack of components is creating bidding wars on turbines and swelling the bottom lines for turbine manufacturers.

GE Vernova, one of the few large-scale turbine suppliers, saw significant growth last year and into 2026, and has a backlog of orders that account for 100 gigawatts of potential power supply. (For reference, that’s nearly one-third of the electricity the entire city of Calgary uses in a year.) 

All three of the major turbine suppliers are reporting delays.

That supply crunch has led some data centre developers in the U.S. to go to extreme lengths to get power, including repurposing old jet engines. 

Noel calls those fixes “inefficient and very costly,” but notes “the revenue they’re getting from the data centres is outstripping the extra cost, so they’re just kind of doing what they can to get any power on site as fast as possible.”

In Alberta, a power surplus could quickly evaporate

There is nothing to that extent happening in Alberta, which quickly instituted a hard cap on how much power was available to data centres from the existing power grid.

The Alberta government has embraced the AI boom as a way to increase demand for the province’s vast natural gas reserves. 

“Jurisdictions that can provide reliable and affordable power will have a serious advantage in attracting investment, and with our vast natural gas resources and mature industrial infrastructure, that is exactly what Alberta can offer,” Premier Danielle Smith said while announcing the recent Greenlight project.

The Alberta Electric System Operator, which manages the province’s private grid, allocated 1.2 gigawatts of power for data centres in a competitive process that ended with two developers allowed to tie into the grid. 

Another round will dole out additional power and the system operator recently announced data centre developers planning to build their own power plants could temporarily tie into the grid while those plants are being built, up to 1.6 gigawatts. 

The operator said by email that the “bridging provision” is a “general mechanism accommodating a time gap (up to three years) between a load being ready to operate and its generation being fully built and in service for any reason.”It is up to the developer to ensure it has the necessary power after that three-year window and if there is a power shortage during those three years, data centres using the bridging provision would be the first to have electricity curtailed. 

The province also has a healthy cushion of extra power after a buildout of capacity prior to market reforms and a renewable crackdown. But that won’t necessarily last. 

Noel points to the insatiable data centre demand and resulting supply crunch, combined with population growth and increasing electrification as pressures on the system. 

“And then we’ve got the old coal plants that were converted to run on gas — those are coming up soon on their end of life,” he says. “So I think mid-2030, if we don’t kind of deal with this now — whether it’s more gas or more renewables or whatever — I think there’s a real possibility that we will go from flush with power to just scraping by again.”

The office of Alberta’s minister of affordability and utilities, RJ Sigurdson, didn’t reply to specific questions about the turbine shortage and its impacts, but said the government prioritizes the “well-being of Albertans” and “will not compromise the reliability or affordability of the electricity that millions of Albertans, Indigenous communities and our local industries depend on.” 

The minister’s office said the government “does not prescribe a specific generation technology for powering data centre projects.” It said the decision by the grid operator to limit generation to natural gas at this time is an independent decision by the arm’s length body. 

The Alberta Electric System Operator says its role is to ensure the safety and reliability of the grid and it does not track whether private developers have ordered the necessary equipment.

So what does this all mean for Alberta’s AI data centre dream?

The Narwhal reached out to all of the big natural gas generators in the province to see if they were being impacted by turbine delays and cost increases, but received no responses. Emails to two data centre developers, Beacon Data Centers and Synapse, also did not get a response. 

It can be difficult to assess how the various companies could be impacted by the current race for power plant components, but applications to the Alberta Utilities Commission, the regulator for power plants, provide some insight. 

Synapse, which hopes to start construction on a data centre near the town of Olds in October, hasn’t disclosed who will build its turbines, but says once final decisions are in place, it could have them on site within a month. It plans to use modular generators, operating alone, before completing construction of a full system while the project is online.

In the company’s application to Alberta Environment and Parks, Synapse says it will use generators from Alberta-based Eco Power Equipment, which specializes in portable gas generators. Eco Power said it doesn’t manufacture turbines. 

Another data centre moving through the regulatory process is Beacon Data Centers’ Indus project, southwest of Calgary. 

Its application to the regulator shows details on turbine components and has a target of Dec. 31, 2028, for completion of the project, pending approval.

Alberta’s electricity market overhaul stalls investment as companies wait for more certainty

As those projects move through the regulatory process, large electricity generators remain cautious about building new projects to help keep the lights on.

There are also questions about how the data centre boom could impact prices. Premier Smith says the Greenlight project could help bring down transmission costs, which ultimately show up on electricity bills. Noel agrees that’s possible. 

But the flip side is increased demand for natural gas and the trickle down of massive cost increases for building power plants could potentially increase electricity or heating bills. 

“I think everyone’s kind of sitting and waiting to see how the [restructured electricity market] plays out,” Noel says. 

“In 2028 we’ll phase out the old market and bring in the new, and maybe then we’ll start to see investment, but that’s a pretty long time.”

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

• Temperatures in Vancouver could climb as high as 29 C this weekend, the first heat wave of the year.
• Water restrictions are in effect, only three of the city’s five outdoor pools are open and outdoor water sampling at many popular beaches has been suspended due to strikes.
• This summer is projected to be one of the hottest on record, raising questions about the readiness of Vancouver to protect its citizens from extreme heat.

This weekend, Vancouverites will swelter under the first heat wave of the year, with a sunny forecast of up to 29 C on Saturday and Sunday. (Listen up, the rest of Canada: it’s not a dry heat!) It’s ideal weather for swimming outdoors or taking your kids to a wading pool — or it would be, if that were an option.

Only three of the city’s five outdoor pools — Second Beach, Hillcrest and New Brighton — will be open. The city’s 11 wading pools, meanwhile, are suspended all summer due to Stage 3 water restrictions across the city, which are expected to last until October. Perhaps you think this is no big deal — after all, the Pacific is right there. But those looking to cool down in the ocean will be taking their chances, as water quality tests at many of the city’s most popular beaches have been suspended due to job action, and those that have been tested lately are showing higher-than-expected E. coli counts. 

It’s a bleak start to the summer, which is expected to be one of the hottest on record, according to Environment Canada.

Complaints about Vancouver’s lack of outdoor pools aren’t new: a decade ago, the Vancouver Sun pointed out the city has fewer pools than any other major city in Canada. (On their city websites, Montreal lists 62; Toronto has 58.) We’re on par with Saskatoon — which operates far more wading pools and splash pads, despite being a much smaller city. But most people frame this as a recreation problem, not a public health issue. 

A recent study in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management found in New York City, more people visit outdoor pools on hot days. No surprise. But the association was strongest in low-income neighbourhoods where many residents have few other options for cooling down. What’s more, the authors found, public pool availability during extreme summer temperatures can reduce heat-related emergency calls by 15 to 29 per cent. 

Five years ago, a heat dome caused 619 deaths in B.C., the deadliest weather event in Canadian history. June 2021 was a wake-up call about the risks posed by climate change, and the urgent need for cities to adapt to extreme heat events. But looking for a place to get wet in Vancouver reveals an alarming reality: we’re not ready for the summer ahead — and we’re definitely not prepared for the future. 

How to cope with heat

Outdoor water recreation is not the only way to cope with heat waves, but it is an important one, especially for people who don’t live in spaces that can be easily cooled. The BC Coroners Service reported 98 per cent of deaths during the 2021 heat dome happened indoors, and most of those who died lacked air conditioning or fans. 

A 2023 report from the federal government noted that B.C. has the fewest number of households with air conditioning — just 32 per cent, compared to 61 per cent nationally. Among low-income households, that figure drops to 17 per cent. Until just a few days ago, landlords could still prohibit renters from installing portable air conditioners without penalty.

“The number of people vulnerable to an extreme heat event is expected to grow as census predictions show a steadily rising elderly population and an increasing share of one-person households,” the report noted. 

But earlier this year, the City of Vancouver discontinued its four-year-old cool kit program, which distributed water bottles, spray bottles, cooling gel packs and other useful things for those that needed them. Instead, the city has seemingly replaced this program with a list of tips for cooling down in the heat. Among the places they advise going to are the still-closed swimming and wading pools. 

As temperatures have risen in recent decades, Vancouver has lost pools: since 1993, four outdoor swimming pools have been decommissioned while adding just one, at Hillcrest Aquatic Centre. Kitsilano Pool, the city’s most popular outdoor pool, is nearing the end of its life and had its season shortened the last two summers due to repairs.

And last October, the city passed a budget cutting $120 million from various departments to spare homeowners a property tax increase. The Vancouver Park Board noted this would mean a $15 million cut to parks. It’s a cut that doesn’t bode well for the ability to improve water amenities in the summer.

Tightened budgets mean we also can’t extend pool operating hours or seasons, which also speak to an antiquated definition of summer that has yet to catch up with our new reality. Wading pools weren’t set to open for another few weeks — even before water restrictions put them on hold altogether. Three of the city’s five outdoor pools close on Labour Day. But high temperatures often persist well beyond that; last September was the hottest on record in Vancouver history. 

A representative for the city told The Narwhal that spray parks — which operate on demand — are more aligned with the city’s water conservation goals than wading pools, which must be filled and drained each day to comply with public health guidelines. A representative from the city told The Narwhal that one new spray park is being designed, while the renewal of another is scheduled to begin this fall. In addition, they wrote “funding is being sought for one or two new spray parks” in the forthcoming capital plan. Increases in spending on wading pools and spray parks since 2019, the city wrote, “reflects a shift toward more extensive repairs and renewals driven by the age and condition of existing infrastructure, as well as available funding.”

Of course, there are Vancouver’s many beaches. They’re free, numerous and open all year — but not always safe to enjoy. Last July, eight beaches were deemed unsafe due to E. coli levels. Even when they are open, they’re not accessible for everyone — like young children, those with mobility issues or anyone else who lives too far to drop by on a hot day — and a climate-resilient city should have cooling infrastructure in every neighbourhood, rather than expecting all its citizens to trek to the beach. 

Pools and outdoor water infrastructure aren’t things that are nice to have. They’re climate adaptations, even if “thermal respite,” or relief from extreme temperatures, is mentioned last among the reasons for pool use in Vancouver’s 2019 aquatic strategy. 

As in 2021, those most at risk from extreme heat this summer are the city’s most vulnerable: low-income and unhoused citizens, as well as the youngest and oldest among us. If only there were more places for them to escape the heat.

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.

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 that stewards the territory.

It’s one of more than 240 Indigenous Guardian initiatives implemented across the country with the support of federal funding: an initial investment of $25 million to pilot Indigenous Guardians programs in 2018-2022 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 Co|Evaluation 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 funding is needed to sustain programs: existing guardians

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,” Smith 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.