Canada is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer. Yet it imported about 500,000 barrels of crude a day in 2025, three-quarters of it from the U.S., according to the Canada Energy Regulator. And much of the western Canadian oil that reaches Ontario and Quebec travels through pipelines that cross the U.S. before coming back north. As diesel prices have skyrocketed, politicians across the spectrum have pointed to a solution they say is simple: build more Canadian refineries.

Case in point: in September, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre pushed Prime Minister Mark Carney to invest in new refineries, saying, “Canadian workers should be turning Canadian oil into Canadian fuel.” In July, Ontario Minister of Energy and Mines Stephen Lecce said Canada needs to “expand domestic refinery capacity.” Departing B.C. premier David Eby said in January that if governments have “tens of billions of dollars to spend,” they should spend it on a refinery rather than a pipeline.

Why now? “Energy security” has become a powerful political argument as the trade war with Washington has made relying on the U.S. feel riskier, and war in Iran and attacks on Russian refineries squeeze global diesel supplies. As Poilievre put it, “the current diesel price crisis will … expose our overreliance on the U.S. to refine our own oil.”

But despite current geopolitics, the idea isn’t new. “It’s like the seasons,” said Pierre-Olivier Pineau, an energy economist at HEC Montréal who has watched refinery fervour come and go for years.

The idea returns just as, in Pineau’s words, “there has never been a better time in human history to run a refinery,” profit-wise. Imperial Oil’s refining division, for example, earned $787 million in the second quarter of 2026, more than double a year earlier. The industry, meanwhile, has been busy bending the ear of the federal government. The Canadian Fuels Association, a lobby group for refineries, reported 51 communications with federal officials in the first nine months of 2026 — more than in any full calendar year since at least 2021. Most of those contacts came in the spring, when diesel prices soared.

In the face of all that, seemingly simple solutions can look like a silver bullet. The thing is, everyone The Narwhal interviewed, from the refiners’ lobby group to its critics, agreed on one thing: Canada isn’t short of refineries. 

Here’s what you need to know.

What exactly is a refinery, and what does it produce?

A refinery is an industrial plant that turns crude oil into products people can use. In Canada, more than 80 per cent of what refineries produce is gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, according to a 2024 analysis by oil market analyst Rory Johnston.

The rest includes heating oil, asphalt, propane and the base oils used to make lubricants for engines. Refineries are different from Alberta’s upgraders, which turn thick bitumen from the oilsands into lighter “synthetic” crude that refineries can then process.

How many refineries does Canada have?

Canada has 16 oil refineries, including two that make asphalt. They have room to process about two million barrels of crude a day. In 2025, Canadian refineries ran, on average, at 90 per cent of that capacity, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.

That’s enough for the country’s needs. “The Canadian market is essentially in balance,” said Carol Montreuil, vice-president for Eastern Canada at the Canadian Fuels Association. Pineau, a frequent critic of the industry, agrees. So does Ottawa. “Canada does not need more refining capacity to meet current domestic needs,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement to The Narwhal. In 2025, Canada exported a net 200,000 barrels a day of refined products, it added.

The real issue is that Canadian refineries don’t process much of the oil this country is best known for: thick, heavy bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands. Heavy crude is only about a quarter of what Canadian refineries process, according to Johnston’s 2024 analysis.

For that reason, most of Canada’s heavy oil goes south, via pipelines, to refineries in the U.S. Midwest and Gulf Coast that can handle heavy crude.

How do refineries affect the people next door?

Refineries support more than 18,000 jobs in Canada, according to the industry. For their neighbours, they can be both a paycheque and a burden.

Near Edmonton, the Imperial and Suncor refineries release benzene and sulphur dioxide, among other pollutants. Limited monitoring makes it hard to pin down how much of the region’s air pollution they are responsible for, The Narwhal has reported.

Sarnia, Ont., is home to Chemical Valley, a cluster of roughly 60 industrial facilities, including three oil refineries. Residents of neighbouring Aamjiwnaang First Nation are exposed to about 30 times more benzene than people in Toronto and Ottawa. Sarnia would be the destination if Ontario and Alberta are able to make Northern Shield happen: that proposed pipeline would carry Alberta crude north of the Great Lakes.

And when the industry leaves, the impact isn’t over. Montréal-Est was a hub of refining activity by companies such as Imperial Oil, which opened the island of Montreal’s first refinery in 1916, and Shell, which closed its last in 2010. Decades after most refineries closed in the 1980s, the area has about 270 hectares of industrial brownfields, roughly the size of 330 football fields, awaiting cleanup and redevelopment.

What are the arguments in favour of a new Canadian refinery?

Gasoline and diesel prices are high, but experts say a new Canadian refinery wouldn’t necessarily ease prices at the pump. Even Montreuil concedes that local refineries offer consumers limited protection from price spikes, since fuel prices are set on global markets.

For Montreuil, it’s more about fuel supply security, which the industry has also raised in recent months, according to the federal lobbyist registry.

Canada’s refineries ensure the country has enough fuel, and without them, we’d be rationing fuel right now, according to Montreuil, who pointed to recent examples around the world. Indonesia and Russia both rationed fuel this year. While some argue refining more oil at home would mean independence from an increasingly unpredictable neighbour, Montreuil and Johnston say that isn’t our only exposure.

Another vulnerability is pipelines that carry Canadian oil back and forth across the border, such as Enbridge’s Line 5. Political skirmishes with Michigan over that pipeline are one reason Ontario Premier Doug Ford is pushing the Northern Shield Energy Corridor. Much of Atlantic Canada relies on crude, much of it American, delivered by tanker to the country’s largest refinery, Irving’s in Saint John. No pipeline exists to bring Alberta oil to the Atlantic provinces, meaning a U.S. export restriction would leave them scrambling for other fuel sources.

Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said federal clean fuel rules are another weakness, because in order to meet emissions reduction targets, suppliers blend in biofuels largely imported from the U.S. “We are artificially making ourselves dependent on an American product,” she said. She argues the rules should be redesigned, and they’ve been a constant topic in the industry’s communications with federal officials, according to the lobbyists registry.

Carney’s government announced tweaks to the clean fuel rules last week, saying it would “make it easier and cheaper for companies to comply.” Transportation is one of Canadian households’ biggest costs, according to Statistics Canada, but Pineau thinks that addressing that by scrapping clean fuel rules would “chain Canadians even more tightly to an extremely expensive way of life,” one built around the car.

On its own, experts say, a new refinery fixes none of that.

How much would it cost to build a new refinery, and who would pay?

Companies are not lining up to build a refinery in Canada, and Ottawa isn’t offering to pay for one. In a statement, the Prime Minister’s Office said the government supports “additional refining capacity where supported by market conditions.”

A large new refinery would cost $10 to $15 billion, take at least five years to build and need 20 to 25 years to pay off, according to Montreuil and Exner-Pirot. Alberta’s last attempt, the Sturgeon refinery near Edmonton, saw its original projected cost double to about $10 billion, with much of the risk carried by taxpayers, though high diesel prices have since improved its profitability.

A new refinery would also struggle to compete on a global market. India’s newest are so big that two of them could supply all of Canada, from gasoline to jet fuel and more, Montreuil said.

With the domestic market already balanced, the purpose of a new plant would mostly be exports. But there is no real export route for refined products to Europe, Ian Sanderson, a senior oil and gas analyst at the Pembina Institute, said in an interview, adding the biggest markets are in Asia and “have substantial refinery capacity to refine Canadian [crude] at a lower price.”

There’s also the issue of decreased global demand for fossil fuels. Global demand for refined oil products could peak as early as 2027, according to the International Energy Agency. “It really is an act of faith,” Montreuil said, to bet that export markets will still want Canadian fuel by 2030 or 2035.

Sanderson points to the coal phase-out in Alberta, which hit mining towns very hard. The lesson, he said, is to “get ahead of the transition” and support oil workers into new jobs.

So far, though, Canadians aren’t using less fuel.

What part of Canada faces the highest risk when it comes to U.S. energy threats?

The most immediate risk is to Ontario, whose refineries run mostly on western crude carried by Line 5 through Wisconsin and Michigan.

Michigan’s governor has tried for years to shut it down over environmental concerns. In late August, the line was offline for more than two weeks after being struck by a truck at a work site in Wisconsin. The episode offered a glimpse of the crisis Canada would face if the Americans shut Line 5 down for good, Montreuil said.

Northern Shield would carry Alberta crude to Sarnia north of the Great Lakes, bypassing Line 5. It wouldn’t add any refining capacity, though: “Same refinery, same oil, just a different route to get it there,” Exner-Pirot said. The open question is how much this new pipeline would cost, and who would pay.

Quebec has more options, but not more independence. The Valero refinery in Lévis gets its oil by tanker through the St. Lawrence River, though much of what Quebec imports comes from the U.S. And Suncor’s Montreal-East refinery gets much of its western crude through Line 9, which runs from Sarnia, so it too depends on oil that crosses the U.S. to reach Sarnia.

What would make Canada’s fuel supply more secure?

Without building a new refinery, there are other ways to shore up supply.

Canada is the only G7 country without a strategic petroleum reserve. Despite being a member of the International Energy Agency, we’re formally exempt from its mandate to hold emergency oil stocks equivalent to at least 90 days of the previous year’s net imports because we produce more oil than we import.

Consequently, when the G7 agreed in early October to release 100 million barrels of oil from emergency stocks to lower prices at the pump, Ottawa’s contribution was to stagger maintenance at its refineries so as not to affect supply. Poilievre has proposed a reserve of refined fuels, though someone would have to pay to fill and maintain it.

Another option is to expand what already exists. Adding 10 to 20 per cent to an existing refinery may be more realistic than building a new one, Montreuil said.

But “the solution isn’t necessarily to cut taxes or to produce more,” Pineau said, noting that new oil and gas infrastructure would run counter to Canada’s climate targets. Unlike past oil shocks, “there are a lot of options to move away from oil,” Sanderson added.

Whichever path Canada takes, the big decisions will largely belong to companies, as HF Sinclair showed this summer by announcing it will stop making base oils in Mississauga, Ont., at Canada’s only such plant. Base oils, used to make motor oil, were already at the centre of a global shortage.

While politicians may bring up building new refineries as an easy solution to a very complicated problem, right now at least, even the industry itself isn’t pushing for it.

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.

Last summer, Lauren Wright was planting lentils in a field outside of Saskatoon. The air was thick with wildfire smoke and, as temperatures climbed, a co-worker was hit with a sudden asthma attack. 

Rushing to the truck for an inhaler, Wright remembers fighting blurred vision, their head pounding from the smoke exposure. The episode is etched in Wright’s memory — not for the sudden moment of panic, but as a lasting reminder that summer life on the Prairies had morphed into something both unfamiliar and dangerous. 

Both of Wright’s parents were raised in northern Saskatchewan, their father on a farm and their mother in a small town. While Wright was the first in the family to grow up in the city, they spent much of their childhood canoeing, fishing and working the family farm during harvest.

A multi-year drought dropped water levels on the river where they used to fish and canoe. Some summers, extreme heat would make it nearly impossible to play sports or go on camping trips. Drought sunk crop yields. Then the wildfires came, and with them, forests burned and smoke filled the air. 

“I really started to understand, you know, what was going on in my city, my country and how climate change was very much a current reality rather than a distant future problem,” Wright said. 

“It’s really a culmination in the change of my way of life, the way of life that my family has lived for so many generations.”

The 22-year-old is among 15 young Canadians whose experiences with heat waves, floods and wildfires form the backbone of a legal case that has wended its way through federal court since 2019. After a series of appeals and amended pleadings, the landmark constitutional challenge — known as La Rose vs. His Majesty the King — will finally be heard at a federal courthouse in Vancouver starting Oct. 26.

Over a four-week trial, lawyers and multiple experts are expected to submit evidence that the federal government’s Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act — which legally binds Canada to absorb as much carbon pollution as it emits by 2050 — is not ambitious enough, and so violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 

The court challenge claims the government’s plan to curb emissions is not in line with the best available science. As a result, the plaintiffs claim it fails to safeguard the life, liberty and security of Canadians, a direct breach of Section 7 of the Charter.

Plaintiffs hope a win would take the politics out of climate policy

Canada’s climate is already warming nearly twice as fast as the global average. Canada could see 5 C of warming by the end of the century if governments around the world do not pursue emissions reduction with more effort than laid out in current climate policies, warned federal scientists in September.

The claim warns of a continued rise in heat-related illnesses, life-threatening diseases, allergies, asthma, exposure to dangerous pollutants and death. As permafrost melts, shorelines destabilize and rivers run dry, ecosystems will suffer, leading to severe consequences — both for spending on public infrastructure and the livelihoods of Indigenous communities who rely on fishing and hunting, according to the claim.

Children are already at higher risk from heat and smoke, and the court challenge emphasizes they will disproportionately suffer in a world where climate-driven disasters become more common and more extreme. 

The plaintiffs, who hail from nearly every corner of Canada, have already seen the destructive power of water and fire tear into the places they call home.

At 21, Haana Edenshaw of the Haida Nation Tsitts Gitanee clan has witnessed sea-level rise damage her family home on Haida Gwaii. 

In 2018, wildfire destroyed Montay Jesse Beaubien-Day’s home in Telegraph Creek, B.C. Today, climate change has limited his Wet’suwet’en and Tahltan families from harvesting wild food like salmon, moose and berries. Multiple studies have shown those food sources have also been impacted by everything from fishing and logging to the exploration and extraction of gas. 

Further north, Kira Young and her family were among 20,000 people evacuated from Yellowknife when fire threatened the territorial capital in 2023. Court documents describe ash falling from an orange sky and fires burning alongside the highway as they fled. 

Abandoning home is a familiar feeling for Sadie Vipond, who in 2013 was evacuated to higher ground when the Bow River flooded her neighbourhood in Calgary.

“I was only seven years old at the time. I had to be woken up by my grandmother and told we had to evacuate,” she told The Narwhal. “I was really scared for my home and family.” 

The plaintiffs’ individual experiences will inform a multi-pronged argument, one that claims Canada’s Net-Zero Act “sets targets and requires development of plans” but fails to require any reduction in carbon pollution.

Canada produces a fraction of total global emissions but has one of the highest per-capita emissions profiles in the world. It is also the world’s fourth largest producer of oil and gas. 

The scale of carbon pollution coming from Canada could grow even more in the coming years as Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government seeks to fast-track several new fossil fuel export projects. That includes a clutch of major liquefied natural gas terminals, as well as the Pacific Link oil pipeline meant to boost bitumen shipments from Alberta’s oilsands to B.C.’s West Coast. 

If the court sides with the plaintiffs, the federal government would need to re-write their net-zero policies to be in line with the Charter. The decision would not force the federal government to pursue a specific climate policy, but it would almost certainly challenge the notion that confronting climate change is a purely political question that can be bumped down Ottawa’s list of priorities, David Wu, one of the lead lawyers in the case, said.

“If there is a shift in the politics of the day, the government can’t just wave away its climate change commitments,” Wu told The Narwhal.

“It raises these broad constitutional questions about whether governments have an obligation to protect their citizens.” 

Feds argue Canada has ‘little or no control’ over climate change 

Federal lawyers pushed back against claims Canada has failed to fulfill its international climate obligations under the 2015 Paris Agreement, whether through its Net-Zero Act or in collaboration with provinces. 

In court documents, Ottawa contends the 15 young people have failed to establish a causal link between federal legislation and their alleged harms from climate change. Submissions from government lawyers state Canada’s plan to lower emissions is consistent with its international commitments, including the 2015 Paris Agreement. 

Canada’s actions at the federal level have “little or no control over the ultimate impacts of globally-fuelled climate change,” the government claims.

Ottawa also argues the court lacks the “institutional competence” to evaluate the scientific, economic and political complexities of global climate change policy. It also ignores the separation of political and legal powers within Canada’s democratic system by attempting to have the courts weigh in on a government decision.

“It’s an argument we’re expecting,” Wu said. “We’re not asking the court to dictate climate policy.” 

“What we’re asking the court to find [is] that Canada has infringed our clients’ rights, and they, the government, need to do better to ensure that those rights are protected.”

Both sides’ arguments have yet to be tested before a judge.

Vancouver trial to test international climate law

The La Rose trial is the latest in a wave of climate litigation supported by the non-profit Our Children’s Trust. Of the nearly 100 rights-based climate change cases currently being brought worldwide, about half are backed by the U.S.-based group, Kelly Matheson, the group’s deputy director of global strategy, said.

The organization has seen some success. One court challenge it supported in Hawaii led to a settlement which pushed the state to aggressively decarbonize its public transportation sector. And in 2024, the Montana Supreme Court sided with 16 young people who had sued the state for violating their right to a “clean and healthful environment” guaranteed under Montana’s Constitution. 

What sets the Canadian case apart is that it is among the first in the world to make it to trial following a handful of major international rulings. Chief among those is a 2025 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice that found states have a general duty under international and human rights law to protect the world’s climate system for present and future generations. 

Canada’s legal system is not bound by the international court’s ruling. But it can be used to inform judges’ interpretation of constitutional rights. One federal judge has already cited the case in ongoing litigation involving two Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs who challenged Ottawa over the full balance of carbon pollution produced by its policies. 

“It’s so rare for these cases to go to trial,” Matheson said of the La Rose case. “It will have persuasive weight all over the world — in part because Canada is a big emitter.” 

Elsewhere in Canada, seven young people led by Sudbury teenager Sophia Mathur sued the Ontario government in 2019 after the province clawed back its own climate targets.

And in June, Mathur joined two other young people to launch a parallel legal challenge against the federal government’s Net-Zero Act. That case, which has yet to go to trial, claims Ottawa abandoned or weakened its interim emission reductions plan, thereby failing to adhere to the 2050 plan.

The La Rose case makes a much broader claim, arguing the Net-Zero Act is weak enough on its own to be unconstitutional, said Andrew Gage, a lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law.

Whatever the outcome, many of the young plaintiffs will finally have their chance to tell their stories. When the case was first filed seven years ago, Wright was still in high school and struggled with the thought that they had the responsibility to represent the experiences of an entire generation. In the years since, Wright said they have found ways to be grounded in their own stories.

“I’m a good snapshot of life here in the Prairies,” the 22-year-old said. “I really have grown to see it as a privilege of being able to show people what is happening in the place that I love so much. And to tell them why it matters.”

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.

For the first time in nearly a century, B.C. has a Conservative government.

Lorne Doerkson’s BC Conservatives won a majority government, defeating David Eby’s incumbent NDP. It’s a stunning win for the Conservatives after a chaotic couple of months, culminating in Eby’s decision to call a snap election almost two years ahead of schedule. 

Doerkson, a low-profile MLA first elected in Cariboo—Chilcotin in 2020, became the party’s interim leader one day before the snap election was called. 

On the campaign trail, Doerkson presented himself as a mild-mannered former rodeo rider and grandfather, promising to bolster B.C.’s economy while cutting taxes, reducing regulations and courting investment. The Conservative campaign platform mentions climate just once, stating “climate decisions” should be based on three principles: protecting people from extreme weather, reducing emissions in B.C. and beyond and delivering measurable results. 

In the end, a majority of voters threw their support behind the Conservatives, handing the former opposition party the reins of the province for the next four years.

“Together, we seized this opportunity, you guys, and together we voted for a better British Columbia,” Doerkson told an electric crowd in Vancouver. During his victory speech he promised to “supercharge” the province and “cut red tape like it’s never been cut before.” 

Despite choosing to call an election while the Conservatives were in chaos, the BC NDP will now form the official opposition. Eby held on to his Vancouver—Point Grey seat but in his concession speech offered his resignation as party leader. 

The BC Greens maintained their seat count with party leader Emily Lowan winning the Saanich North and the Islands riding where she was seeking a seat in the legislature. Incumbent Green MLA Jeremy Valeriote was re-elected in West Vancouver—Sea to Sky.

Here’s a breakdown of some of the promises Doerkson and the Conservatives made on the campaign trail.

The end of DRIPA and a new approach to Indigenous Rights

One of Doerkson’s first public statements after becoming interim leader of the BC Conservatives was to declare his intention to repeal B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA.

The pledge, which is a top priority for the Conservatives, appears in the party’s platform under a section titled “protect private property rights” — despite the fact that the act doesn’t deal with private property.

During the campaign, Doerkson was vague about what his government’s next steps would be after repealing the act. Ditching the law will not eliminate the B.C. government’s consultation obligations with First Nations or eliminate friction related to Indigenous Rights and Aboriginal Title. Even in a post-DRIPA province, the constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations can be hashed out in the courts, as they have been for decades.

“Simply just repealing it isn’t going to do anyone any service,” Dallas Smith, president of the Nanwakolas Council, told The Narwhal in an interview during the early days of the election campaign.

The Conservative platform promised to pass a law requiring information about Aboriginal Title claims and ongoing negotiations to be made public. The proposed law would also publicize information about legal actions and agreements related to First Nations Rights and Title.

The party’s platform also promises to “restore equal access to Crown land and provincial parks,” a pledge that appears to target annual temporary closures of Pipi7íyekw/Joffre Lakes Park, which restrict visits to members of Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua First Nations, whose unceded territories encompass the park. These reconnection periods have been taking place since 2023 and are intended to allow the nations to conduct traditional harvesting, as well as ceremonial and cultural practices.

Under a BC Conservative government, reconciliation with First Nations will focus on “practical co-operation, clear and fair treaty agreements and economic opportunities,” the platform says. It emphasizes opportunities for First Nations to benefit from projects through revenue sharing and ownership opportunities.

LNG, fracking and fossil fuels

The Conservatives have promised to make B.C. an “energy superpower” by doubling liquefied natural gas (LNG) production by 2032 and tripling it by 2035. With LNG Canada the only LNG export facility currently operating in B.C., the province is already on track to more than triple the province’s LNG production by 2035 with five additional LNG projects currently in development.

On the campaign trail, Doerkson lamented the number of LNG projects proposed under the BC Liberal government of the 2000s and 2010s and said his party is keen to see if any can be revived.

The Conservative energy platform also pledges to get rid of B.C.’s industrial carbon tax and replace it with new rules that it says would ensure B.C.’s gas exports are competitive with the United States and Qatar.

A BC Conservative government would take a new approach to tallying B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions, one that runs counter to the 2016 Paris Agreement. The Conservative platform proposes taking credit for “emissions avoided through cleaner B.C. exports,” using the example of exported gas replacing coal. 

Doerkson has also promised to use deregulation as a tool to spur economic development, partly by bringing back a ministry dedicated to getting rid of rules, processes and laws it deems burdensome or unnecessary. For every new regulation a Conservative government makes, it would axe two existing regulations, according to Doerkson.

Energy, electrification and renewables

Beyond boosting natural gas and LNG production, the BC Conservatives are promising to boost B.C.’s energy self-sufficiency, a commitment that would mean building a considerable amount of additional energy generation capacity. The province currently balances its energy needs through a mix of energy imported from other jurisdictions (mostly Alberta and western U.S. states) and locally generated power.The strategy, basically, is to use local sources when they are cheap and convenient and buy imported power — such as solar-generated power from California — when it is plentiful and cheap. To date, the strategy has worked out well, though recent drought conditions have put a squeeze on those margins.

The Conservatives are committed to boosting B.C.’s energy production “from every available source,” according to its platform.

Boosting biomass production is a key part of the Conservatives’ energy pitch. The party is proposing to increase the use of logging and mill waste to make renewable fuels. On renewables, the Conservatives support wind, solar and small-scale hydro power “where economics and reliability make sense,” as well as geothermal projects where a business case can be made — i.e. with little investment from the provincial government.

Notably, the 2026 B.C. Conservative platform did not mention nuclear power, an energy source the party touted as part of the solution to B.C.’s energy crunch during the 2024 election.

Beyond increasing exports, a Conservative government would consider opening the door to more natural gas power production in B.C. by making it eligible for BC Hydro’s call for energy project proposals. 

The Conservatives are also promising to “restore choice in energy for home heating and cooking” — a commitment to attacking restrictions and bans on natural gas use implemented by local governments — and overhaul B.C.’s Energy Step Code, which sets energy efficiency standards for new buildings.

Logging and old-growth forest conservation

On the campaign trail, the BC Conservatives promised to do many of the same things the NDP government did to bolster the province’s floundering forestry industry — secure support from the federal government to offset the impact of U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber, boost policies aimed at getting more woodfibre to mills and provide cash for mills to upgrade their operations.The Conservatives’ forestry platform promised to make more trees available for harvest — but does not address how the party would ensure companies actually harvest the maximum amount allowed, something that has not happened in years due largely to the dwindling availability of economically viable trees to log. The Conservatives are also promising to focus on streamlining permitting, reduce costs for forestry companies and support value-added manufacturing.

Conservative forestry policies would double government revenue from stumpage fees by 2028-29, according to the campaign platform. The 2026 provincial budget did not include a specific revenue estimate for stumpage but estimated total forestry-related revenues will increase 3.3 per cent per year through 2029.

The BC Conservative platform claims conservation is a conservative value but doesn’t offer many specific conservation-focused commitments. The party pledges to increase enforcement in parks and wilderness areas with more conservation officers in the field, and to establish sustainable fish and wildlife population objectives.

The platform promises a science-based approach to wildlife management with input from hunters, anglers and First Nations. It also repeats a 2024 campaign commitment to develop a made-in-B.C. species-at-risk law. The Conservative platform doesn’t mention B.C.’s existing commitment to protect 30 per cent of lands and waters by 2030, known as 30-by-30. In May 2024, former BC Conservative leader John Rustad told The Narwhal he would abandon the goal.

 What now?

When the B.C. legislature began its summer break at the end of May, the BC NDP held 47 seats, the BC Conservatives held 39, and the BC Greens held two. There were five independent MLAs, all of them formerly members of the BC Conservative caucus.

The BC Conservatives had just elected a new leader, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, a former Conservative Party of Canada MP and cabinet minister. Findlay won the leadership race to replace John Rustad, who resigned as the party’s leader in December 2025 after weeks of caucus infighting. Findlay’s victory was narrow; she won 51 per cent of party members’ votes, barely beating out second-place finisher Caroline Elliott. Elliott is set to head to the legislature after winning the West Vancouver—Capilano riding for the BC Conservatives.

The BC Conservatives had a spectacularly chaotic summer. Findlay’s leadership lasted just 113 days, ending in her resignation on Sept. 20. Before she stepped down, 13 MLAs had left or been removed from the BC Conservative caucus and one more — Abbotsford—Mission MLA Reann Gasper — stepped down to allow Findlay to secure a set in a by-election.

Doerkson was appointed the party’s interim leader the day after Findlay stepped down.

After Eby’s snap election call, the by-election was cancelled, Findlay exited the party and 10 of the 13 MLAs who had left the caucus signed up to run again. 

“I think David Eby is going to regret this,” Doerkson said at a Vancouver press conference following the snap election call. “Because this election actually offers an opportunity for hope and for real change.”

He was right. The Conservatives won a historic victory, though Doerkson’s future as premier is uncertain. His party’s constitution bars interim leaders from running to become a permanent leader, though the constitution can be changed. Tweaking the rules to allow Doerkson to remain premier will require the support of two-thirds of party members at an annual general or special general meeting. The Conservative Party’s board of directors committed to “pursue the appropriate means” to keep Doerkson as party leader in the event of an election win.

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.

With the provincial election just days away, promises from B.C.’s main political parties are piling up. Voters have been offered tax breaks, tax increases, price caps and new health-care resources. But none of the main parties vying for votes has had much to say about the environment or climate change. It took more than two weeks for the BC NDP and BC Greens to release their climate platforms. The BC Conservative Party put out its full platform — with the party’s first explicit mentions of climate change — on Oct. 18, two days after advance voting began and just six days before the final vote.

After nearly a decade in government, the BC NDP isn’t offering much in the way of new climate-focused policies in this election. The party’s climate platform, released on Oct. 10, includes a pledge to cap the amount of power available for AI and data centres, a policy already enacted into law last year. If re-elected, Leader David Eby is promising to hold data centres in B.C. to high standards for water efficiency and require them to report their water use publicly.

The BC Conservative platform mentions climate just once, stating “climate decisions” should be based on three principles: protecting people from extreme weather, reducing emissions in B.C. and beyond and delivering measurable results. “The need to develop our natural resources must always be weighed against the need to conserve our bounty through responsible resource management,” the platform states.

Unsurprisingly, the BC Green campaign platform promises to put climate policy at the centre of the provincial agenda by making climate targets central to “major policies, infrastructure investments and industrial decisions.” In addition to a dedicated climate platform, many of the party’s campaign promises include climate-conscious components. The Greens’ economic platform focuses on ways to build “a prosperous, resilient, low-carbon economy” and the party’s housing platform includes a commitment to reduce emissions related to buildings by focusing on lower-carbon designs and materials, as well as conserving existing housing stock.

With all three party platforms published, The Narwhal dug in to see where the parties stand on key issues — and what they’re promising to get rid of.

What B.C. election platforms say about LNG, fracking and fossil fuels

Both the NDP and the Conservatives are committing to expanding the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry in B.C. Producing natural gas usually involves hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process that shoots high-pressure water mixed with chemicals underground to fracture the rocks and release the gas. Making LNG requires running massive compressors 24-7 to cool gas into a liquid. It’s an energy-intensive process that — so far in B.C. — is largely powered by burning natural gas.

The Conservatives have promised to make B.C. an “energy superpower” by doubling LNG production by 2032 and tripling it by 2035. When that policy dropped, the NDP was quick to point out the five LNG projects in development are already on track to more than triple the province’s LNG production by 2035.

The Conservative energy platform also pledges to get rid of B.C.’s industrial carbon tax and replace it with new rules that it says would ensure B.C.’s gas exports are competitive with the United States and Qatar. 

A BC Conservative government would take a new approach to tallying B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions, one that runs counter to the 2016 Paris Agreement. The Conservative platform proposes taking credit for “emissions avoided through cleaner B.C. exports,” using the example of exported gas replacing coal. 

If his party forms government, Leader Lorne Doerkson has also promised to use deregulation as a tool to spur economic development, partly by bringing back a ministry dedicated to getting rid of rules, processes and laws it deems burdensome or unnecessary. For every new regulation a Conservative government makes, it would axe two existing regulations, according to Doerkson.

The NDP is promising to use some oil and gas royalty revenue — $50 million to start — to promote climate action and create jobs. The “Clean Futures Fund,” as the NDP platform dubs this promise, might sound familiar, possibly because some of the revenue raised by B.C.’s consumer carbon tax was once dedicated to similar spending priorities.

Speaking of oil and gas revenues, Eby refused to confirm whether his government is still committed to its original plan to collect 50 per cent of profits reaped by gas companies in B.C. The new gas royalty system is scheduled to take effect in 2027.

“We’re going to hold on to high royalty rates,” Eby said in response to a question from The Narwhal about whether he remains committed to the 50 per cent target announced by the B.C. government in 2022.“We’re going to demand as much as possible and we’re also going to build the economy.”

The BC Greens’ platform promises a 50-50 profit split under the new gas royalty framework. The Green climate platform notes B.C. is expecting to collect about $1.1 billion in gas royalties in the 2027-28 fiscal year. Bumping the province’s share of that royalty revenue up to 50 per cent would yield over $4 billion, according to the Greens.

The Greens have also pledged to end further fossil fuel development in B.C., banning new fracking operations, LNG facilities or expansions and pipelines, and axing provincial subsidies, favourable tax policies and public financing for fossil fuel production.

Leader Emily Lowan was the only provincial party leader to criticize LNG Canada’s decision to proceed with Phase 2 of its Kitimat LNG facility. The final investment decision to proceed with the expansion — which has been fully permitted since 2018 — was announced on Sept. 28 and celebrated by both Eby and Doerkson.

Neither party leader mentioned the integrity issue with the existing LNG Canada facility’s flare stack which resulted in Kitimat community members being subjected to excessive noise, black smoke, a towering flame — at times reaching the height of New York’s Statue of Liberty or London’s Big Ben — for months.The consortium of companies behind LNG Canada wants the facility’s permit changed to accommodate higher emissions levels to account for its need to keep the flare burning 24-7 until the stack can be redesigned in 2028.

B.C. election platforms on Indigenous Rights and DRIPA

One of Doerkson’s first public statements after becoming interim leader of the BC Conservatives was to declare his desire to repeal B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA.

The pledge, which is a top priority for the Conservatives, appears in the party’s platform under a section titled “protect private property rights” — despite the fact that DRIPA doesn’t deal with private property.

A Conservative government would pass a law requiring information about Aboriginal Title claims and ongoing negotiations to be made public. The proposed law would also publicize information about legal actions and agreements related to First Nations Rights and Title.

The party’s platform also promises to “restore equal access to Crown land and provincial parks,” a pledge that appears to target annual temporary closures of Pipi7íyekw/Joffre Lakes Park that restrict visits to members of Líl̓wat and N’Quatqua First Nations, whose unceded territories encompass the park. These reconnection periods have been taking place since 2023 and are intended to allow the Nations to conduct traditional harvesting, as well as ceremonial and cultural practices.

Under a BC Conservative government, reconciliation with First Nations would focus on “practical cooperation, clear and fair treaty agreements and economic opportunities,” per the platform. It emphasizes opportunities for First Nations to benefit from projects via revenue sharing and ownership opportunities.

The BC NDP platform doesn’t mention DRIPA but Eby confirmed near the beginning of the election campaign that he would stick to his plan to amend the law to block further court challenges.“We do have to respond to that court decision, it’s not up for debate,” he said on Sept. 25. “We’ve been working with First Nations over the summer to see if we can find a path forward that we all agree on.”

The Greens are promising to leave DRIPA as is and to work with First Nations to develop a process aimed at resolving disputes proactively as a way to avoid court cases — something some NDP MLAs have often stated the law was intended to do.The Greens are the only party with a dedicated Indigenous Rights section in their platform.

Protecting lands and waters in B.C.

An NDP government would stick with its commitment to protect 30 per cent of B.C.’s lands by 2030, a promise the party has been working on since 2022. 

In the party’s 2026 campaign platform, the 30-by-30 goal is linked to the Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor, a federal initiative announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney in November 2025 and referred to the Major Projects Office as a potential national interest project. According to the NDP, the corridor will “add protections to an area equivalent to 12,000 Stanley Parks, while enabling responsible natural resource development.”

The NDP is also promising to continue funding the Watershed Security Fund at $30 million per year. The fund was created in 2023 with a $100-million commitment from the province making this another stay-the-course pledge from the party.

The BC Conservative platform claims conservation is a conservative value but doesn’t offer many specific conservation-focused commitments. The party pledges to increase enforcement in parks and wilderness areas with more conservation officers in the field, and to establish sustainable fish and wildlife population objectives.The platform promises a science-based approach to wildlife management with input from hunters, anglers and First Nations. It also repeats a 2024 campaign commitment to develop a made-in-B.C. species-at-risk law. The Conservative platform doesn’t mention B.C.’s existing 30-by-30 commitment. In May 2024, former BC Conservative leader John Rustad told The Narwhal he would abandon the goal.

The Greens would make 30-by-30 a minimum goal. The party also promises to boost funding by BC Parks and recreation sites across B.C. to $114 million, a 50 per cent increase.

In its tourism strategy, the Green Party platform promises to put environmental impacts front and centre when considering development opportunities for new and existing tourism destinations.

The platform has a section dedicated to water management and protection, including a commitment to implement a proactive, long-term approach to protecting water security and ensuring industrial users pay a fair share for the water they use.

None of the party platforms mention the future of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas (IPCAs), which have been a key tool for advancing conservation efforts in B.C. and Canada. In northern B.C., members of the Kaska Nation say the snap election has slowed efforts to finalize protection of Dene Kʼéh Kusān, a proposed Indigenous-protected area that would cover one of the province’s largest intact wilderness areas.

B.C. election platforms on logging, old-growth forest protections

B.C.’s forestry industry has struggled for years with multiple mill closures and hundreds of jobs lost since the 2024 election. At the same time, the province’s forests have been impacted by wildfires and drought.

On the campaign trail, Eby pointed to the support his government secured from Ottawa to offset the impact of U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber and efforts to get more woodfibre to mills. The NDP platform promises to continue to support the forest industry by providing more cash for mills to upgrade their operations, spending $120 million to protect jobs at mills that are at risk of closing and focus on making sure mills get the fibre needed to keep operating.

The party’s promises to protect B.C.’s forests are less robust.

A re-elected NDP government would dedicate $50 million to permanently protect some of B.C.’s “most irreplaceable and rarest” old-growth forests. The party’s platform makes no mention of the 2020 old-growth strategic review, despite a 2024 campaign commitment to fulfill all of its recommendations.

The BC Conservatives are promising to do many of the same things the NDP has done but better, bigger and faster. The party’s forestry platform promises to make more trees available for harvest — but does not address how the party would ensure companies actually harvest the maximum amount allowed, something that has not happened in years due to largely to the dwindling availability of economically viable trees to log. The Conservatives are also promising to focus on streamlining permitting, reduce costs for forestry companies and support value-added manufacturing.

The platform projects Conservative forestry policies would double government revenue from stumpage fees by 2028-29. The 2026 provincial budget did not include a specific revenue estimate for stumpage but estimated total forestry-related revenues will increase 3.3 per cent per year through 2029.

A Conservative government would “encourage Indigenous participation in the forestry industry by investing in skills training” and dedicate a portion of federal funding for targeting the forest industry to First Nations.

The party is also promising to “resolve” the issue of old-growth deferrals by “protecting original old growth” and making the rest eligible for logging. The platform does not define original old growth but does say that B.C.’s “most endangered and rarest ecosystems” would also be protected.

The Green platform proposes shifting B.C. forestry from a fibre-supply model to one that prioritizes ecosystem health, wildfire resilience, cultural values and healthy communities. A Green government would permanently protect old-growth forests and large second-growth forests from logging, fully implement the old growth review’s recommendations and provide conservation financing to help First Nations replace forestry revenues in favour of protecting forests.

The Greens are also promising to ban the use of glyphosate and other chemical herbicides as part of forest management practices — a pledge the NDP and Conservatives both made in 2024.

Energy, electrification and renewables

Beyond boosting natural gas and LNG production, the BC Conservatives are promising to boost B.C.’s energy self-sufficiency, a commitment that would mean building a considerable amount of additional energy generation capacity. The province currently balances its energy needs through a mix of energy imported from other jurisdictions (mostly Alberta and western U.S. states) and locally generated power.The strategy, basically, is to use local sources when they are cheap and convenient and buy imported power — such as solar-generated power from California — when it is plentiful and cheap. To date, the strategy has worked out well, though recent drought conditions have put a squeeze on those margins. 

The Conservatives are committed to boosting B.C.’s energy production “from every available source,” according to its platform.

Boosting biomass production is a key part of the Conservatives’ energy pitch. The party is proposing to increase the use of logging and mill waste to make renewable fuels. On renewables, the Conservatives support wind, solar and small-scale hydro power “where economics and reliability make sense,” as well as geothermal projects where a business case can be made — i.e. with little investment from the provincial government.

Notably, the 2026 B.C. Conservative platform doesn’t mention nuclear power, a source the party touted as part of the solution to B.C.’s energy crunch during the 2024 election.Beyond increasing exports, a Conservative government would also consider opening the door to more natural gas power production in B.C. by making them eligible for BC Hydro’s call for energy project proposals. 

The Conservatives are also promising to “restore choice in energy for home heating and cooking” — a commitment to attacking restrictions and bans on natural gas use implemented by local governments — and overhaul B.C.’s Energy Step Code, which sets energy efficiency standards for new buildings.

While the NDP government hasn’t exactly shied away from natural gas as a power source, the party’s platform touts efforts to ensure nearly all of B.C.’s electricity is generated from renewable and low-emission sources.

An NDP government would continue funding for heat pump rebates to the tune of $50 million per year and dedicate $16 million to building out the province’s electric vehicle charging network. 

The Green platform promises to one-up the NDP on most of its existing energy promises. This includes heat pumps, insulation and energy-efficiency upgrades, restoring BC Hydro’s abandoned net-metering system for residential solar power and allowing plug-in balcony solar in B.C.The Green energy platform also emphasizes community-owned energy projects, an area where B.C. currently lags behind several provinces.

A Green government would ban oil and gas hookups for new homes and residential buildings and set a goal of using electricity to supply at least 35 per cent of B.C.’s total energy needs by 2035. Currently, about 20 per cent of all the power used in B.C. comes from electricity, according to the Canada Energy Regulator, while 34 per cent comes from petroleum products and 31 per cent is natural gas.The final voting day in the B.C. election is Oct. 24.

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.

Poll after poll says B.C. voters are most concerned with affordability and health care. But interim BC Conservative Party Leader Lorne Doerkson had a different answer when asked what his top priority would be if his party wins: scrapping the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA.

“I will repeal DRIPA,” Doerkson told reporters in Vancouver on Sept. 22.

The act’s future has been a hot-button issue for much of the year. After years of touting the law as a major step toward working with First Nations in a better, more equal way, NDP Leader David Eby abruptly changed his tune in December 2025. His about-face came after a ruling from the British Columbia Court of Appeal that found the government’s obligations under the Declaration Act are legally enforceable — meaning First Nations can take the province to court for failing to uphold the law.

In response, Eby vowed to change the law, a commitment he stood by at the start of the election campaign. 

“We do have to respond to that court decision, it’s not up for debate,” he said on Sept. 25. “We’ve been working with First Nations over the summer to see if we can find a path forward that we all agree on.”

Eby’s plan to change DRIPA proved unpopular with many First Nations leaders. When the election campaign began, the BC Assembly of First Nations called on B.C. politicians “to reflect on the divisiveness, misinformation and fearmongering that has defined this last year.”

“It is in the best interest of all British Columbians to reject these divisive politics and support First Nations by upholding the human rights of First Nations Peoples under DRIPA and returning their focus to the issues that matter most to British Columbians,” Terry Teegee, Regional Chief with the assembly, said.

Discussions about DRIPA are often rife with misinformation. Critics have claimed the law jeopardizes private property rights (it doesn’t) and gives First Nations a veto over proposed developments (also untrue). Campaign trail soundbites and promises from politicians aren’t likely to improve things.

“A lot of the challenges … have been created by the politicians themselves jumping out ahead of this issue for their own political benefit,” Adam Olsen, a former BC Green Party MLA, told The Narwhal. “It’s not for the benefit of British Columbians because the benefit to British Columbians is a calm, thoughtful, constructive relationship.”

“Politicians have an obligation not to promote racism against Indigenous people because when they are elected, they’re going to be the ones that are implementing reconciliation,” Cynthia Callison, a partner with Callison & Hanna Law who has advocated for First Nations in B.C. for 29 years, said in an interview.

Let’s cut through the rhetoric and dig into some of the claims about what the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act is, what it does and what lies ahead.

Fact check: Does DRIPA give First Nations a ‘veto’ over development?

When B.C.’s Declaration Act was introduced, the government stressed it did not amount to a veto for First Nations on issues like resource development. DRIPA does not alter provincial requirements regarding consultation with First Nations, and the provincial law has no impact on Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, which recognizes and affirms Indigenous Rights. 

DRIPA isn’t explicitly about industrial projects or resource development, but conservative political parties and others have claimed the law makes it more difficult for proposed projects to move forward.

“It isn’t taking one side or another in a project,” Dallas Smith, president of the Nanwakolas Council, said in an interview. “It’s saying, ‘This is a list of things that should be contemplated and discussed and worked through as you go through these processes to get towards final investment decisions.’ ”

Some of the confusion may come from the fact that provincial project evaluation processes often involve asking First Nations to grant consent to a project. But consenting or not doesn’t make a nation the statutory decision-maker, Callison said. Legally, final say on whether projects are granted provincial permits rests with B.C. cabinet ministers.

“Now, are they going to consider whether First Nations consented or not? Yes, they are, but they’re also going to consider other factors,” Callison said. 

Ministers also consider potential economic benefits and environmental impacts when deciding whether a project gets the go-ahead. The FortisBC LNG expansion, approved right before the election call, for example, involved consulting eight First Nations; some of which consented, and some that didn’t.

DRIPA is about more than getting shovels in the ground, Smith pointed out. Applied properly, it makes projects more certain as they are less likely to hit legal hurdles or on-the-ground opposition.“It’s about how do we get a working relationship that is increasing investment opportunities, as opposed to chasing them out of British Columbia,” he said. “Unfortunately, because of the lack of clarity, political opportunism has made it look like DRIPA is chasing these investment opportunities out of town, where really, if applied properly, it can enhance them.”

Fact check: Has DRIPA always been controversial?

It may seem hard to believe now, but when the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act passed in the B.C. legislature in 2019, every MLA voted in favour of it. It’s rare to see such unanimity in the legislature.

At the time, the government described the act as “a path forward” for relations between First Nations and the province. The idea was that the legislation would hold the government legally accountable to its stated commitments on reconciliation and to align provincial laws and regulations with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

For years, there was little controversy or even public discussion about DRIPA. During that time, B.C.’s Declaration Act Secretariat — a government agency created to guide the law’s implementation — worked with First Nations and issued annual reports on its progress.

“They have focused on social issues like education and emergency services and child welfare,” Callison said.

The secretariat is also responsible for determining which laws and regulations get top priority to be aligned with the UN declaration. The Declaration Act offers few concrete details for what the province is bound to do and when, and that vagueness has contributed to misunderstandings and self-interested interpretations. 

“Everybody has their own subjective view beyond the legislation that’s in place,” Smith said. He believes DRIPA was introduced with the hopes it would be “sort of a silver bullet” for some of the tougher conflicts between the provincial government and First Nations — some of which resulted in lengthy and costly court battles. Instead, he said DRIPA has become “a political football” tossed around by party leaders, First Nations representatives, industry groups and think tanks.

Too often, it’s the perceived downsides of DRIPA that get put in the spotlight, he added.

“I really wish people would start looking at what are the opportunities as opposed to what are the shortcomings and what are the potential perceived failures around this.”

DRIPA provides a rubric that can help First Nations and companies navigate the ins and outs of project development, from the planning and assessments needed to determine whether a proposed project goes ahead, to what will have to happen when a mine or logging operation winds down. A handful of projects have already moved ahead under a specific section of the law.

Fact check: Does DRIPA create uncertainty for industry?

Members of the BC Conservative caucus have repeatedly claimed that DRIPA creates a climate of uncertainty that makes companies rethink their investments in the province. However, DRIPA’s stated goal is to “provide certainty and stability” about how projects can move toward approval by clearly defining the responsibilities of the provincial government and First Nations. And there are several examples of natural resource projects that have seen this benefit.

Section 7 of the law allows for joint decision-making agreements with First Nations regarding industrial projects on their traditional territories. These agreements enabled by DRIPA have helped advance a few natural resource projects, including the Eskay Creek revitalization, the Red Chris mine and the Galore Creek mine.

DRIPA’s goal of giving companies a set of expectations and a framework for engaging with First Nations on proposed projects was a good one, Smith said.

“My years in working with different industries on the coast of British Columbia have told me that industry just wants to know where they can and can’t operate,” he said. “DRIPA should have been a powerful tool to help illustrate that a little bit more.”

If anything, Callison argues, it’s the B.C. government’s handling of DRIPA that has created uncertainty. The 2025 ruling that caused Eby’s flip-flop was in response to a legal challenge brought by the Gitxaała Nation and Ehattesaht First Nation about the province allowing mining claims on their territory without their input. 

“Why did the Gitxaała case happen? Because the province did not make it a priority to amend the free miner system under the Mineral Tenure Act, and so the First Nation went to court,” Callison said.

A year of political punting and lingering uncertainty about DRIPA’s future has not improved economic confidence in B.C., according to Smith.

“It’s slowing down our ability to actually build certainty because we don’t know whether this legislation is going to get tinkered with or not,” he said.

Fact check: Does DRIPA threaten people’s ownership of homes and businesses?

The claim that DRIPA threatens private property rights in B.C. has come up again and again and again over the past year.

“That’s untrue,” Callison said. “Nowhere in DRIPA are they saying that reconciliation includes taking private property away.”

This claim is likely due to people conflating two separate court rulings — the Gitxaała decision and the Cowichan decision — which were issued just four months apart in 2025. 

The Gitxaała decision is the one that spooked Eby, in which the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled First Nations can take B.C. to court for failing to uphold DRIPA. 

The Cowichan decision dates back to 2014, when the Cowichan Tribes filed a case with the B.C. Supreme Court, asserting Aboriginal Title over lands along the Fraser River, in what is now known as Richmond, B.C. The lands claimed included a traditional summer village site, known as Tl’uqtinus, and the tribes’ suit asserted rights to fish and gather food in the claimed area. Although the claim was brought in B.C., it was launched prior to DRIPA becoming law and turned on Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, not provincial law.

In August 2025, 11 years after the case was filed, B.C.’s Supreme Court affirmed the Cowichan Tribes’ Aboriginal Title under the constitution. The Cowichan case only named governments and government agencies, and the tribes have repeatedly said they have no intent of trying to take away any private property as a result of the court ruling. What the ruling made clear is the B.C. government cannot ignore the tribes’ federal Aboriginal Title rights but must negotiate with them to reconcile their Title with the interests of existing property owners.

“I haven’t heard one First Nation come out and say, ‘Well, yeah, we’d like to cancel people’s title and get rid of fee simple ownership,’ ” Callison pointed out.

The B.C. government appealed the ruling, and Eby has said his government will “go to the wall” to protect the rights of private property owners. He has also linked the Cowichan Tribes and Gitxaała cases, calling them “dramatic, overreaching and unhelpful court decisions.”

But DRIPA and the Cowichan decision actually have little to do with each other legally, besides being related to Indigenous Rights. Again, the Gitxaała case concerns the province’s actions — allowing mining claims to be staked on First Nations territory without notification or consent — and whether violating DRIPA makes them legally accountable. Meanwhile, the Cowichan case is about federally recognized rights that guarantee Indigenous Peoples access to traditional territories and to cultural practices.

Fact check: Would repealing DRIPA resolve all of these issues?

The BC Conservatives and others who support DRIPA’s repeal imply that getting rid of the law will clear away all friction of Indigenous Rights, Aboriginal Title and consultation obligations with First Nations. That is almost certainly not the case.

“That’s not the end of it; that’s the beginning of it,” Olsen said. 

“Simply just repealing it isn’t going to do anyone any service,” Smith agreed. “I wish the opposition parties would be a lot clearer about what the alternative is, because they all know there has to be an alternative.”

DRIPA’s repeal could prompt public protest from some First Nations, Smith added, while others would continue ongoing discussions with companies interested in operating on their land.

“A lot of us have deals that are in the making right now that we simply can’t stop because there’s an election,” he said. “So while the government’s in caretaker mode, we’re still talking with a lot of the industries that are looking at investing in collaboration with First Nations.”Getting rid of DRIPA would not eliminate the constitutionally guaranteed right of First Nations, which can be hashed out in the courts, and have been, Callison pointed out. 

Legal responsibilities aside, reconciliation should remain a priority for whichever party forms the next B.C. government, she added — something those parties should keep in mind as the election campaign rolls on.

“Why not take a little lesson out of history? If you are elected, you’re going to have to reconcile with Indigenous people in British Columbia.”

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.

A leaked document, labelled a cabinet report and outlining possible plans to overhaul Alberta’s natural gas pipeline system to spur AI data centre construction, caused an uproar last week. 

It was top of mind for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith on her weekly radio show, it was the subject of an Alberta NDP news conference and it was in media outlets of every stripe. But what exactly is the leaked document at the heart of the controversy and what does it actually mean?

The document, first obtained by The Narwhal, has spread far and wide, at least according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi. Multiple media outlets say they’ve received a copy, but the full details have not been made public. Until now. 

The document was leaked to The Narwhal by a government official whose identity is being kept confidential. The Narwhal verified they are in a position that would likely have access to such a document, and the provincial government did not deny its authenticity when it issued a statement in response to the leak.

The Narwhal is publishing a copy of the document it obtained, alongside an explanation of what it all means — and whether it is, as Smith’s government now suggests, merely one of many considerations it reviews on a regular basis. 

A copy of the document can be found here. The document will contain some typos, introduced by efforts to ensure the document’s source remains confidential.

Let’s dive in.

What’s the deal with that leaked document?

The document outlines plans for the province to overhaul how natural gas pipelines operate and are regulated within the province. 

According to the document, the recommended proposals for consideration include changing the regulations in Alberta to ensure all natural gas pipelines fall under provincial jurisdiction, and then also passing legislation that would allow the government to create two Crown corporations. One corporation could oversee the pipeline system and compel companies to make investments deemed a priority by the government, and the other could build and operate, or bankroll, new pipelines — and directly compete with existing private companies.

If the government doesn’t go for the recommendations, the document says there could be some combination of those interlocking options. For example, creating the Crown corporation that would oversee the system, but not the corporation that could build or bankroll new pipelines. There is also the option to continue with the status quo. 

The document includes timelines for cabinet decisions, as well as implementation. It also breaks down the estimated costs of implementing the changes, including the multimillion-dollar costs of possible legal battles with companies including TC Energy.TC Energy owns and operates the largest natural gas pipeline system in the province, called the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, or NGTL. 

TC Energy and ATCO, another energy company mentioned in the document, did not respond to a detailed list of questions about the contents of the document by publication time.

In a statement released after the document was leaked, TC Energy said it is prepared to keep investing in its pipeline system to meet demand.“This will require all of us — industry, customers, regulators, governments, stakeholders and rightsholders — to come to the table and improve the conditions to get infrastructure built,” it reads.

“The key is working together to bring forward credible solutions, capital and capacity quickly enough to support Alberta’s growth and enable Canada to unlock the opportunity to meet the moment.”

Wait, why is Alberta considering this? Do we need pipelines for AI data centres?

The plans for natural gas expansion are not just about data centres, there is also reference to expanding oil and gas production, including access to natural gas for oilsands operations. 

But the expansion of AI data centres are front and centre throughout the document, which notes “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyperscale data centre capital and other investors.”So why do we need gas for that?

The Alberta government is eager to host data centres in the province, with a line-up of potential projects that dwarf any other region in the country. The province, realizing there was no way to power all those projects, capped access to the electricity grid and told producers to build their own power if they want to get up and running. 

The draft rules for data centres require that electricity to be generated by natural gas, at least for now, part of a wider plan to increase production and demand for the resources.

In a recent interview with The Hub, the government argued bottlenecks in the natural gas pipeline network are an impediment to attracting and building more data centres, one of the key reasons it wants to incentivize, or force, expansions to natural gas pipelines.

TC Energy said in its statement that it has invested approximately $15 billion into expanding its Alberta network over the past ten years and plans to spend billions more. 

The document says it’s not moving fast enough.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says this is just spitballing, is that true?

The first thing Smith addressed on her weekly radio show on Sept. 12 was whether or not the province is considering spending billions to build new pipelines for data centres.“Short answer, no,” Smith said, in response to the question from host Wayne Nelson.

She then went on to add nuance to that hard “no.”

TC Energy has a “monopoly” on the gas pipeline system, she said, and the government wants other companies to build more access. 

“We would very unlikely have to create a Crown corporation to do it,” she said.

But the premier did not rule out compelling private companies to build more natural gas pipelines the government deems to be in the province’s best interests. 

One day earlier, after The Narwhal broke the news of the leaked document, the office of Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean issued a statement.“Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions,” it read.

Is this just a passing idea?

The Narwhal shared excerpts from the document with Shannon Phillips, a former environment minister in the NDP government between 2015 and 2019. Though she is not involved in the current deliberations, speaking from past experience with such documents she said she believes the document outlines a “serious plan.”

“This isn’t just the government blueskying,” she said. “They’re going to move.”

Lori Williams, a political science professor at Mount Royal University, agrees with Phillips. The Narwhal also shared excerpts of the leaked document with Williams.

 “This is a fairly well-developed plan with very short timelines, and this isn’t just a discussion about something that might happen someday,” she said based on her review. (Williams is not privy to any internal details about the government’s deliberations.) “This is something that’s got timelines for this month.”

According to the document, the plan went before a high-level cabinet committee on Sept. 10 and is scheduled to be presented to the full cabinet on Sept. 22. The document says it would then move to the government’s legislative review committee to draft new laws on Oct. 15 and then new regulations on Dec. 4. 

“The idea that it’s just a speculative exercise is harder to maintain when you’ve got timelines that begin this month,” Williams said. 

An internal government source, whose identity is being kept confidential due to professional risk, said the cabinet report is moving forward regardless of the statements made by Smith over the weekend.

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

This story uses information from sources The Narwhal has agreed not to name. The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. 

As Canadian governments become increasingly secretive, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight. 

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

The Alberta government did not respond to questions about whether it was pursuing the plans outlined in the document by publication time.

What else is the Alberta government saying?

One item in the document raised particular concern for some, and was the focus of a news conference Nenshi hosted the same day The Narwhal published its story: cost for consumers.

The document warns the moves will likely increase costs for Albertans. One estimate in the document suggests the government’s aim is to almost double natural gas prices to support and expand production, which could see the cost to generate electricity rise by 25 per cent. That cost would then be passed down to consumers on their power bills, but the document does not predict those impacts. 

On her call-in show, Smith argued the opposite was true. 

“If you have constrained gas, and there’s more demand than there is supply, that’s what causes prices to go up,” she said. “And so what you need to do is you need to increase supply so prices stay low.”

That runs counter to estimates laid out in the document, the government’s own ambitions. It also runs counter to outside analysis.

How could the plan in this document affect your power bills?

Data centres consume vast quantities of power. One hyperscale data centre can consume as much power as the entire city of Edmonton, or more. That also means they consume vast quantities of natural gas in their power plants. 

It’s one reason why the government has explicitly linked increased natural gas demand with the data centre buildout, and argued the increased demand will help natural gas producers and the government’s own bottom line through increased royalties. 

Analysis from the Pembina Institute estimates the recently announced Meta data centre near Edmonton alone could add $270 to $460 to electricity bills each year.

Beyond the cost of gas, there is also concern with the potential costs passed down to taxpayers from lawsuits, the construction and operation of pipelines or the creation of a new corporation to oversee the pipeline network.

Sonya Savage, an energy minister under premier Jason Kenney, told the Calgary Herald this week that government interventions in the market can be a big gamble. 

“It makes me very nervous, because there is not a great track record,” Savage said in the wake of the document leak.

“But [if] the private sector is not prepared to invest in projects that are in the public interest — and have public merit and benefits — then I’m not opposed to the government looking and researching.”

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.

It’s been a whirlwind year for tornado researchers in Manitoba. 

“It’s the busiest we’ve ever been, by far,” John Hanesiak, a professor in the department of environment and geography at the University of Manitoba, says. 

Hanesiak is a collaborator with the Northern Tornadoes Project, a national research program based at Western University that aims to better understand tornadoes in Canada.

Since late May, Hanesiak and his team have spent 43 days in the field surveying damage caused by tornadoes and severe weather events across Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Previous seasons have required a maximum of 19 days on the road. 

Fifteen tornadoes have touched down in Manitoba so far in 2026, including two within the city of Winnipeg — and that number could still rise as other storms are evaluated. It’s a substantial  jump from the six to eight that typically occur in the province each summer, but doesn’t surpass the record of 18 tornadoes set in 1991.

It’s been a similarly busy season nationally, with 121 tornadoes recorded from northern Alberta to Nova Scotia. According to the federal government, Canada records an average of 97 tornadoes annually. 

“This may end up being a year where we have the biggest tornado count overall,” David Sills, director of the Northern Tornadoes Project, says. 

And the season isn’t over yet. 

Why have there been so many tornadoes in Manitoba this year?

High levels of humidity and a series of particularly strong weather systems have resulted in the above-average tornado season, Hanesiak explains. 

A tornado is a rapidly rotating vortex of air that stretches from the base of a thunderstorm cloud to the ground. Four ingredients are needed to generate thunderstorms capable of producing tornadoes.

The first is high humidity, which acts as atmospheric fuel and can lead to more intense storms. Second is a high degree of instability in the upper atmosphere due to temperature changes. Third is a trigger that moves air upwards, such as a low-pressure trough or weather front that causes warm surface-level air to rise vertically like a hot air balloon. And fourth is wind shear, or sudden changes in wind speed and direction at higher altitudes.

After several years of drought conditions in Manitoba, these ingredients have been converging more frequently this summer thanks to a deluge of rain in June that led to widespread flash flooding. 

“That just helps humidity, so you have a lot of potential storm energy available,” Hanesiak says. “And we’ve had some pretty intense weather systems.” 

The tornado-producing storms in Manitoba and Saskatchewan in early June caused more than $840 million in insured damage, according to the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Why does it take so long to confirm if a tornado has touched down?

Tornadoes are small, fast-moving events that can’t be tracked in real time with existing weather radar technology. Suspected tornadoes can only be verified through damage surveys; as well as reports, photos and videos from witnesses — the analysis of which takes time. 

Researchers use the Enhanced Fujita scale to determine a tornado’s intensity based on the extent and degree of damage to foliage, vehicles and infrastructure. The weakest tornadoes are rated EF-0 and have a minimum estimated wind speed of 90 kilometres per hour, while the strongest are rated EF-5 and can reach wind speeds of 315 kilometres per hour or higher — about as fast as the top speed of a Formula 1 race car.

Most tornadoes fall on the weaker end of the spectrum. The strongest to hit Manitoba this year was an EF-3 near Rossburn, Man., which reached a maximum estimated wind speed of 230 kilometres per hour, destroyed two homes and levelled trees. Canada’s only recorded EF-5 tornado landed in Elie, Man., in 2007.  

Tornadoes that occur in remote, unpopulated areas are often confirmed well after they make landfall. At the end of the season, Northern Tornadoes Project staff spend hundreds of hours combing through satellite imagery of Canadian forests to find evidence of unreported tornadoes, which look like long narrow scars from above. 

“We usually find somewhere between 15 and 30 new tornadoes that we didn’t know about,” Sills says. 

The project also tracks downbursts, which can produce damaging winds when air drops rapidly toward the ground during a thunderstorm. There have been five confirmed downbursts in Manitoba, including in Selkirk and Caddy Lake, and 47 across the country this year.

When and where do tornadoes occur in Manitoba?

The severe storm season typically begins in May and ends in September. While most occur in southern Manitoba, tornadoes have been reported as far north as Churchill, according to historic data from Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The majority of tornadoes take place in rural areas because most of the province is rural — but they can happen anywhere. Case in point: two EF-1 tornadoes landed within the city of Winnipeg this year.

The first destroyed a home in the Whyte Ridge neighbourhood and travelled more than six kilometres through southwest Winnipeg in June. The second tore through the River Heights neighbourhood on Sunday with estimated wind speeds of 155 kilometres per hour. No one was injured, but the storm left thousands of residents without power.

It’s a common misconception cities are less likely to experience tornadoes due to their taller buildings or higher temperatures (a.k.a. the urban heat island effect). This is false, according to Hanesiak. Urban tornadoes are rarer simply because cities make up a smaller proportion of the map. 

“It certainly happens,” Hanesiak says, adding urban sprawl may affect this dynamic in the future. “As cities get larger there’s a higher probability of actually getting hit.”

Changing storm trends may also increase the likelihood of tornado activity more broadly, Sills adds.

How is climate change affecting tornadoes?

More research is needed to understand the complex relationship between tornadoes and climate change, but Canada’s warm-weather storm season appears to be starting earlier and ending later, according to Sills.

“We believe that the severe storm season is actually extending,” he says. “If you have a longer season, there’s more chances for tornadoes, more chances for the really big stuff.” 

A warming planet is likely to alter weather patterns in ways that both encourage and hinder the development of tornadoes.

Wildfires, for example, are becoming more frequent and can produce their own extreme weather events, such as lightning and tornadoes. At the same time, drifting smoke can cut down on the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground, Sills explains, creating cooler temperatures and reducing the amount of solar energy available for thunderstorms. 

“It’s really not just a case of climate change equals more tornadoes. It’s changing by region, changing by season,” he says.

North America’s “tornado alley” is also moving eastward. Over the past 40 years in Canada, the number of tornadoes in the Prairies has gone down, while the number of tornadoes in Ontario and Quebec has gone up. This trend carries into the United States, representing a subtle but significant continental shift, Sills says.

Is tornado forecasting improving in Canada?

Yes, gradually. 

Environment and Climate Change Canada is responsible for issuing tornado warnings and severe weather alerts across the country. In August, the department rolled out a new system called Convective Alert Modernization, which was designed to reduce “alert fatigue” by enabling forecasters to deliver more precise warnings to targeted areas.

The timeliness and accuracy of the department’s tornado warnings have improved from an F to a C since 2019, according to independent annual report cards issued by the Northern Tornadoes Project.

The project’s scope has grown since its founding in 2017. The project is now under the umbrella of the new Canadian Severe Storms Laboratory, which also collects data on hail storms. Flash flooding — a worsening phenomenon owing to climate change — is the lab’s next priority. 

“Anything we can do as a community to help improve community resilience, improve the way the prediction is done, it all helps us adapt to this new reality,” Sills says.

Days after Sills spoke with The Narwhal and the Winnipeg Free Press, staff at the Northern Tornadoes Project were busy analyzing the aftermath of another Manitoba storm using ground and drone surveys.

The project confirmed two more tornadoes touched down in the province on Sunday — the one in River Heights, the second west of Elie — leaving swaths of splintered trees, toppled Hydro poles and damaged cars and homes in their wake.

Eva Wasney is a reporter covering environmental issues in Manitoba. Her position is part of a partnership between The Narwhal and the Winnipeg Free Press.

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.

FortisBC is a familiar name to many British Columbians. The company’s yellow and blue logo appears on utility bills across the province, but people might not know the company operates one of B.C.’s longest-running liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. And now it’s hoping to be able to produce 10 times more LNG at its plant in Delta, B.C., under a proposal dubbed Tilbury LNG Phase 2.

FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG plant has been operating for 55 years. It currently produces about 250,000 tonnes of LNG per year, which is used as fuel by some marine vessels and to heat homes and businesses. The Phase 2 expansion could allow the facility to produce up to 3.4 million tonnes each year, with roughly 2.5 million set aside for export. That’s slightly more than the 2.1 million tonnes Woodfibre LNG in Squamish expects to export once it begins operations.

FortisBC has been working on beefing up its operations at the Tilbury site for about a decade. In July, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix announced the government’s support of an earlier expansion proposal, known as Phase 1B, which will add a marine jetty to the site and increase production capacity to 650,000 tonnes of LNG per year. Once Phase 1B is completed, Tilbury LNG will be able to fuel more marine vessels with LNG, which is a lower-emission fuel than the diesel many ships use for power. 

A July cabinet order signed by Dix exempted Phase 1B from review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That means the expansion will not undergo an independent assessment to examine whether it is necessary and serves the public interest. Last year, the B.C. government also exempted the North Coast transmission line from such a review.

The order also created the option for First Nations co-ownership of the project, which the Musqueam Indian Band has expressed interest in. 

Meanwhile, Tilbury LNG Phase 2, a separate proposal for the same site in Delta, is currently being evaluated by the Environmental Assessment Office. If approved, it would see the construction of a new LNG storage tank with a capacity of up to 142,400 cubic metres, about 57 Olympic swimming pools. There would also be new gas liquefaction facilities capable of producing up to 7,700 tonnes of LNG per day, along with other infrastructure needed to support the expanded operations.

B.C. is betting on major projects as Canada looks to open new markets and reduce its reliance on the U.S. Tilbury Phase 2 is among the 35 energy and mining projects the province has identified as a priority. 

Here’s what you need to know.

Table of Contents

• Why this project?
• What’s different about Tilbury LNG?
• How does this fit into a bigger conversation about shipping traffic?
• What exactly will the expansion look like?
• What are the possible health impacts for people living near the project?
• What are the next steps for the proposed expansion?

Why this project?

Tilbury’s Phase 2 expansion will boost the gas system in the Lower Mainland and help meet peak demand for heat during cold weather, according to the provincial government. Building the project will support 1,210 jobs, the province’s major projects site states — though how many people will be employed after the expansion is built is not yet known.

The project description does not mention the LNG export aspect of the expansion.

FortisBC’s website describes the Phase 2 expansion as a way to “continue reliably serving our customers in a lower-carbon energy future while providing economic growth and benefits to local and Indigenous communities.”

Increasing Tilbury’s LNG production capacity will allow the company to “respond to the growing demand for LNG as a lower-carbon fuel,” according to the site.

In an emailed statement, a FortisBC spokesperson highlighted that the Tilbury facility runs on electricity and therefore has “a lower carbon footprint compared to fossil fuel-based power sources commonly used in LNG production elsewhere.”

“The proposed Phase 2 expansion will be required to meet all applicable regulatory, environmental and permitting requirements, including those established by Metro Vancouver.”

What’s different about Tilbury LNG?

While the other LNG facilities operating or under construction in B.C. are located at some distance from nearby communities, Tilbury LNG is an urban facility.

It sits on the banks of the Fraser River, just across the water from Richmond and downstream from New Westminster, making it the only urban LNG facility in the province. Highway 17, one of the Lower Mainland’s major transportation corridors, runs right alongside it.

“It is a 10-minute walk … to the nearest brewery,” Anna Barford, oceans campaigner for Stand.earth, says in an interview. 

Loaded LNG tankers leaving the Tilbury facility will have to transit the south arm of the Fraser River mouth to make their way out into the Salish Sea, a busy shipping corridor that could become much more crowded over the next few years if and when a number of other projects come to fruition.

How does this fit into a bigger conversation about shipping traffic?

At Roberts Bank, just south of where LNG tankers from Tilbury would enter the Salish Sea, the Port of Vancouver is planning to expand its existing container port by 50 per cent. If that $3.5-billion proposed expansion goes ahead, the port location could handle an additional 2.4 million 20-foot (six-metre) shipping containers each year, adding hundreds of container ship transits to the Salish Sea’s waters.

Meanwhile, the completed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is expected to increase tanker traffic in the area by nearly 350 tankers per year.

And then there’s Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the Pacific coast, which would also terminate at Roberts Bank. The tanker terminal would be built to accommodate very large crude oil carriers, massive ships capable of carrying 2.2 million barrels of oil that are longer than three World Cup soccer pitches laid end to end.

“These are enormous vessels that the Tilbury tankers are going to navigate around — they will each need to sort of make way for each other,” Barford said. “This is also critical habitat for southern resident killer whales, who we know vessel traffic is a problem for.”

The Environmental Assessment Office will consider potential impacts on southern resident killer whales and other local species and their habitats as part of its evaluation of the Tilbury LNG Phase 2 proposal. Measures by FortisBC to mitigate those impacts will also be assessed.

What exactly will the expansion look like?

To enable the facility to process more gas, the Phase 2 expansion includes a ground flare — basically, an outlet to burn off excess gas when needed. Instead of a flare stack like the one high above the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, B.C., Tilbury LNG will burn off excess gas at ground level. 

The ground flare option was chosen because it “limits the opportunity for wildlife interactions with flames and greatly reduces noise and flame-related visual effects,” a FortisBC spokesperson said in an email.

The expansion would increase Tilbury LNG’s emissions to one million tonnes per year, according to a report from the Pembina Institute. Most of those emissions — 0.7 million tonnes — would come from so-called upstream emissions, related to the fracked gas and its transportation to Tilbury LNG via pipelines. The other 0.3 million tonnes of emissions would come from the facility’s operations. 

However, the assessment excludes emissions during the start-up phase, a time when LNG facilities often flare more gas than they would once they are established. Flaring involves burning off gas as waste rather than shipping it or using it. LNG Canada, which has been operational for two years now, has been flaring up to 15 times more gas than it was expected to, due at least in part to an issue with the facility’s flare tip. LNG Canada reported flaring 350 million cubic metres of gas in 2025, according to figures reported to the BC Energy Regulator — 10 per cent of all the gas transported to the plant that year. 

What are the possible health impacts for people living near the project?

Experts say significantly expanding an LNG facility in an urban area raises a range of concerns, including possible impacts on human health.

Emissions from an expanded Tilbury LNG will be entering an airshed already permeated with pollution, Tim Takaro, a physician-scientist in environmental medicine, says. Exhaust from vehicles, including heavy trucks travelling to and from port facilities, mingle with emissions from industrial operations along the Fraser River. 

“There’s just no reason to build a new fossil energy facility in a populated area,” he says.

New Westminster and Richmond had some of the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide of any community in B.C. in 2024, according to a report from the BC Lung Foundation. Nitrogen dioxide is a product of high-temperature fossil fuel combustion and is pushed into the air from vehicle tailpipes and industrial smokestacks. Long-term exposure is linked to impaired lung growth in children and more frequent asthma attacks.

For Takaro, who is a member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Tilbury LNG’s impact needs to be considered in the context of existing air quality conditions. 

“What does this facility add to the existing air quality?” he says. “Because that’s what people breathe — they don’t just breathe the new part.”

The Tilbury expansion’s ground flare is also a point of concern for Takaro.

“Their flare is going to be at ground level, which is, of course, where people live,” he says.

Ground flares are often about the height of a single-story building, says Tim Doty, a former employee of Texas’s environmental agency who spent years inspecting oil and gas facilities across the state.

“In theory, that’s going to bring the emissions closer to the community,” he says. 

“I would expect this facility, as it expands, to further impact the community and air quality around Delta and the Vancouver [area].”

Tilbury Phase 2’s environmental assessment takes into account current air quality and modelling of the expansion’s effects, according to an emailed statement from the assessment office. 

What are the next steps for the proposed expansion?

B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office is in the final stages of evaluating the Phase 2 expansion. The last public comment period ended in July and the office received 631 completed surveys about the project.One of the survey’s 18 questions asked respondents to select any issues they believed had not been appropriately assessed or that lacked information. A majority of respondents flagged greenhouse gas emissions as an area of concern. Impacts on wildlife, fish and habitat were also selected on a majority of surveys.

The assessment office received more than 4,400 written comments, many of which detail concerns about how the project could impact salmon and orca populations, as well as the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the face of global warming. Of the hundreds of comments reviewed by The Narwhal, the handful in support of the expansion focused on the global market for LNG and the importance of reducing market reliance on the United States.

Once the assessment office completes its evaluation, the ministers of energy and environment will receive a recommendation on whether to issue an environmental assessment certificate to the project. The ministers expect to make a decision by the end of the year, according to a July press release.

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.

Amid worsening U.S.-Canada relations, Ontario Premier Doug Ford is once again threatening to cut off electricity to 1.5 million homes and businesses across three neighbouring American states: Minnesota, Michigan and New York. 

The move comes as Canada tries to stave off the impact of U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to charge “far WORSE” tariffs after the federal government decided to walk away from trade negotiations on Aug. 21. Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced a “dollar-for-dollar” retaliation beginning September.

But Ford is pitching a more aggressive approach. “Everything’s on the table,” he told reporters on Aug. 24. “I’ll do whatever it takes.” 

On Ford’s table are critical minerals, uranium, potash, oil and, significantly, electricity. 

“We power 1.5 million homes and businesses,” Ford said. “What I find ironic about this is we’re actually giving electricity to companies that make products that compete against us. That needs to stop, and we’re going to address that.” 

Ford emphasized that Ontario isn’t the only province that sends electricity to the U.S. Others include New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia. “So we need to get together and decide if we’re going to put surcharges on the electricity,” he said. “How can we let them take really inexpensive electricity to make goods to compete and take jobs from Canadians? You can’t square that circle.” 

Ford’s plan wouldn’t just affect Ontario or its bordering states; it could have repercussions for affordable, reliable electricity across both countries.

Ontario has been trying to stave off these effects by proposing new and massive energy projects across the province — investments that Energy Minister Stephen Lecce deems “tariff-proof, recession-proof.” But these projects are far from being operational.

Here’s everything you need to know about this developing situation.

How did we get here?

For more than a century, America and Canada have bought and sold power between provinces and states. At any given moment, electricity is flowing in either direction across a shared and massive transmission grid, with the goal of keeping electricity affordable and available, especially when it’s most needed. Both countries have helped the other during cold snaps, heat waves, droughts and floods. 

While our shared systems have made us susceptible to each other’s energy failures — 50 million people lost power when overgrown trees in Cleveland caused North America’s largest blackout ever, in 2003 — for the most part, this relationship has been seamless. 

But for the second time in almost two years, all of this is under threat. 

The first major threat to the two countries’ shared electricity grid came in November 2024, when Trump threatened to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports — unless the two countries improve security along their borders. 

In response, Ford imposed a 25 per cent tax on electricity exports and threatened to shut down electricity exports entirely should the tariffs remain on the table. The surcharge was in effect for one day last year and made the province $260,000.

Both options — which Ford once described as options of “last resort”— are being pitched once more. 

The federal government has not officially weighed in on Ford’s proposal yet. Neither have other provinces that send electricity south of the border. 

Which Canadian provinces send America electricity?

Canada began sending electricity to the U.S. in 1909, when the first transmission line was built connecting the two countries. Today — 117 years later — every Canadian province along the border is electrically interconnected with at least one U.S. state. There are more than 31 cross-border transmission lines across both countries. 

That means the countries can easily work together to balance out fluctuations in energy needs. For example, during extreme winter weather in the U.S. in 2021, Canadian electricity companies sent increased electricity to those that needed it — an act that wasn’t just friendly, but kept the heat on as temperatures plummeted to less than -20 C in most parts of the central and southern U.S. (That’s less than -4 F for any Americans reading this.)

Ontario is the largest electricity-exporting province, followed by Quebec, while Michigan, New York and Minnesota are the largest electricity importers.

Why has Canada integrated its electricity system with America’s? 

Simply put: we produce too much! And the U.S. population is much, much bigger. 

Ontario’s very large nuclear supply, hydro plants and renewable energy sources collectively produce more electricity than the province of less than 17 million people uses on a regular basis. Nuclear facilities aren’t easily turned on and off, so Ontario sells largely emissions-free electricity to the U.S. overnight for cheap. (The alternative is letting that surplus electricity go to waste.) 

Quebec also produces more hydroelectric power than it uses. That’s why it has long-term export contracts to supply electricity to New York state — home to 20 million people. It’s also a major source of revenue for the provincial government. 

In total, Canada exports enough electricity to power 4.5 million U.S. homes.

Does America sell electricity to Canada? 

Yes, and we might need more of it soon. 

Ontario’s nuclear production has shrunk as aging plants are shut down or refurbished, while drought conditions have made hydroelectricity less reliable in British Columbia and Quebec. Meanwhile, a growing population and energy-hungry technology has put greater demands on Canada’s supply. 

The Independent Electricity System Operator, which manages supply and demand in Ontario, reported in 2024 the province may have to consider increasing the amount of electricity it imports from the U.S., even as it rushes to build new power plants and find new sources of power. 

The balance is already shifting: by fall 2023, monthly average U.S. electricity exports to Canada increased by 70 per cent, and imports decreased by 36 per cent. 

British Columbia has been a net importer of electricity for three years in a row; 25 per cent of the province’s electricity came from America.

In the Prairies, imports and exports are minimal, and the one line connecting Alberta to Montana has been at the centre of a legal battle with Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway.

How has politics affected the Canada-U.S. electricity relationship before? 

On the whole, the shared grid has operated with relatively few discussions of tariffs or trade barriers. The disputes have more frequently been between jurisdictions or electricity producers and utilities. Communities have sometimes opposed electricity projects on the other side of the border when they fear it might affect their local environments. 

Premier Doug Ford has been threatening to cut American states like New York and Michigan off from Ontario’s power. Could he do that?

He could. 

The Ontario government has the power to instruct the Independent Electricity System Operator to limit electricity exports, which would theoretically impact the amount of energy neighbouring American states can access. 

There’s one snag. To both increase the price of electricity exports and shut them down, the government would need to table legislation directing Ontario’s electricity utilities and operators. The government is currently on an extended summer break until Oct. 27. Ford is resisting the Ontario NDP’s call to return sooner to pass emergency relief measures for workers in tariff-exposed sectors and business.

If Ontario reduced or eliminated electricity sales to American states, what would be the impact there and at home?

The electricity grid really is one big machine, so it won’t function nearly as well if we cut it in half. 

Two energy experts previously told The Narwhal the immediate impact would likely be marginal in American states, which could make up for lost Ontario electricity by tapping into local sources of power kept in reserve, mostly fossil fuels. The result would be a grid that was more expensive to operate, much dirtier and less reliable on both sides of the border. Plus, Ontario’s electricity producers would see a financial loss, which might increase costs for domestic users. 

If Ontario was in an emergency situation during a charged political battle, like a winter storm, it wouldn’t be able to rely immediately on U.S. electricity, as it can now. It would have to work more closely with Manitoba and Quebec.

All of this is hypothetical, though. Ford has yet to provide details of his plan.

How will Ontario mitigate the impacts of the trade war on electricity?

By building big, new energy projects — or so they say.

On Aug. 25, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce was in St. Clair Township, at the border between the U.S. and Canada, to announce his government is planning to revive the long-shuttered Lambton coal-generating station into either a new nuclear or gas facility. This proposal joins a long list of massive energy projects — including new generating facilities in Nanticoke and Port Hope — the Ford government believes will make the province and the country energy-independent.

“Energy independence has always been vital,” Lecce said. “Today, it’s more than just keeping the lights on. It is about our national security and sovereignty. It’s about making power and having the power to make our own decisions, build our own industries and fuel our economy right here at home.”

But these projects are far away from being built, let alone being operational. In the short term, a trade war with electricity caught in the centre will have some impact on residents across both countries.

—With files from Drew Anderson

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

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

It’s the summer of data centre controversies in Ontario.

In a season where city council chambers are usually quiet, residents of Hamilton, Oakville, Mississauga, Burlington and Toronto have shown up to public meetings in droves. Many are there to resist proposals for massive new data centres in their backyards, worried about noise, water use and energy bills.

By mid-August, Oakville and Mississauga moved to freeze new data centre construction for a year. Hamilton came within an inch of doing the same.

On Aug. 13, Ontario Premier Doug Ford weighed in. 

Standing in front of a wall of servers at a government-owned data centre in Guelph, Ford unveiled the province’s new “data centre playbook” — and made clear he had little patience for local revolt against the boom he wants to usher in. 

“This is the way of the future,” he said. “Either we do it or Donald Trump’s going to do it, and I’m not giving Donald Trump nothing, absolutely nothing.”

Pushback is also happening in Fergus, Sault Ste. Marie and Armour Township, where a project was cancelled in June in the face of public opposition. Ford calls data centre skeptics “hypocritical,” suggesting residents fighting these projects were “misinformed.”“It just doesn’t add up,” he said, arguing that people can’t rely on artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud storage while also refusing the infrastructure that enables them. 

It was a blunt, campaign-style pitch for a $122-billion industry that has been lobbying hard to take root in Ontario, attracted by its clean electricity grid, temperate weather and proximity to the Great Lakes (four of the five count shorelines in the province). But the data centre push has sparked real concerns about the very few rules governing these massive facilities, and the resources needed to run them.

It’s a story with chapters being written across Canada — including Alberta, where more than 40 are proposed, and New Brunswick, stirring worries about the impacts on old-growth forests and wetlands. Around the world, communities are making it clear they view the centres and the technologies they enable with increasing caution.

And now Ontario is making moves. The province’s playbook has been posted online for public consultation until Sept. 12. It’s currently just a draft, not yet in force — and the legislature won’t be back to debate it until Oct. 27, after an extended summer break.

Here’s everything you need to know.

What are data centres — and why do they matter so much right now?

Strip away the technical jargon and a data centre is just a warehouse full of computers — racks and racks of servers that store and crunch the data behind everything from your email to chatbots to this very story. 

Whether you like them or not, data centres have become the backbone of the modern economy: cloud storage, artificial intelligence, banking systems, health care and government services all run on them. 

They’re not new — Ontario already has dozens — but artificial intelligence has supercharged their scale and size. Today’s data centres are requesting hundreds of megawatts of power, dwarfing older facilities that ran on less power and used less water to cool their servers. While artificial intelligence has its own tension points (which we won’t get into here, but feel free to check out our AI policy), resource use is the root cause of local concerns around the physical space occupied by data centres.

How does a data centre get built in Ontario?

Energy Minister Stephen Lecce has said the province “welcome[s] data centre entrants” — but that welcome comes with strings attached and an approval process that can take up to three years, maybe more. 

The groundwork for this process was laid out first in Bill 40, formally the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act — the first law governing data centres among provinces — and further in the new playbook.Between the two, it’s clear that data centres need to prove two things to be able to connect to Ontario’s grid.The first is to prove they will be able to cover the full cost of their own electricity connections and use — something other businesses aren’t required to do — so regular households aren’t stuck covering the cost. To enforce that, Ontario wants to create a new, higher electricity rate for any data centre over one megawatt. Quebec’s version of this rate kicks in at five megawatts, so Ontario’s lower bar would catch a lot more projects.

The second is to show the centre will be good for Ontario’s economy. The playbook lays out a three-part criteria to determine this: what jobs, investments and tax revenue it could bring to Ontario; whether it would keep local data in the province; and whether benefits to the host community outweigh the financial and environmental costs. If a data centre can’t satisfy these criteria, Bill 40 gives the energy minister the power to reject its grid connection request. 

“The bottom line is, if a data centre wants to come to Ontario, it is not your right,” Lecce said in a July press conference as the criteria were unveiled. “We now have the right to say no.”

Data centres also have to get approval from municipalities, which determine zoning and building permits. However, most Ontario municipalities don’t yet have zoning rules that specifically address data centres. This means projects can often move ahead on land already zoned for general industrial use, leaving councils with limited power to say no. 

Notably, data centres in Ontario do not have to go through a full environmental assessment, according to analysis from law firm McCarthy Tétrault. It’s also unclear if the province will enforce the constitutional duty to consult Indigenous communities on proposed data centre projects. 

But the province is ensuring other things. The playbook says the government will favour centres that use quieter equipment. It’s also encouraging companies to build their own power supply instead of relying entirely on the public grid, since that can get them running faster than waiting in line for a grid connection. Doing so would exempt a data centre from the process outlined in the playbook. It may also see data centre projects proposed with on-site natural gas plants, as we’re seeing in Alberta. 

One thing neither the playbook nor Bill 40 makes clear is what size of data centre the new process applies to.

How will data centres impact Ontario’s electricity demand?

Significantly — and the numbers keep increasing with every new forecast. 

In 2024, the system operator forecast Ontario’s overall electricity demand will grow 75 per cent by 2050 — a sharper jump than previously projected, driven largely by factories and data centres. The centres are expected to account for about 13 per cent of that new demand by 2035.

A more recent forecast suggested data centres could eventually make up close to nine per cent of all electricity used in Ontario by 2050.

What are data centres using all that electricity for? To stay running all the time; servers never sleep, constantly processing web traffic and requests. 

The province says it’s already fielding interest in data centre builds that would add up to roughly 30 per cent of Ontario’s current peak electricity demand. 

That’s a lot of energy demand — and brings us to the supply challenge ahead.

Will this increase in data centre energy demand result in Ontario using more natural gas?

Possibly, at least in the short-term future.Most of Ontario’s electricity comes from low-emissions sources like nuclear and hydro power. But when demand spikes, like during a heat wave when those who have air conditioners turn them on, natural gas plants are usually what fills the gap, since they can be switched on and off quickly.

That matters for data centres, which run around the clock. If a facility is drawing heavily during one of those peak moments, it could be leaning on gas power to do it. And that fossil fuel is primarily made up of methane, a potent greenhouse gas driving climate change and the worsened wildfire seasons, floods and other severe weather we’ve experienced as a result.

How will data centres impact Ontario’s water usage?

We don’t know yet. 

Existing large data centres use water-based cooling systems to keep servers from overheating. That means that all the water pulled into a centre absorbs the heat from the servers and evaporates into the air. Any water that doesn’t evaporate is reused and then sent to a local plant as wastewater. In closed-loop systems, water just circulates in pipes that cool the servers, so there is little lost to the air. 

According to one estimate, a single one-megawatt data centre can use up to 25.5 million litres of water a year just for cooling — about what all of the homes in the city of Mississauga use in a day. Many of the data centres being proposed in Ontario are larger than that, which means, depending on their cooling system, they could also be using a lot more water. 

Microsoft is building three data centres in Ontario, which share an estimated total demand of approximately 200 megawatts. One planned in Toronto’s Etobicoke area was approved to use up to about 40 litres of water every second for cooling — that’s about five bathtubs full every five seconds, and 1.2 billion litres a year. A separate Microsoft complex in Vaughan is expected to use about 730 million litres of municipal water a year.

The province’s playbook says Ontario will favour data centres that use water-free or closed-loop cooling and reuse waste heat — for instance, to help warm nearby buildings.

What are Ontario municipalities doing about data centres?

On Aug. 11, Oakville became the first Ontario municipality to pass a one-year pause on building new data centres. Mississauga is set to follow suit. Both were facing major AI data centre proposals, or at least land acquisitions that suggested them.

Other municipalities are taking different approaches. Hamilton voted down a proposed pause. Burlington and Waterloo Region have asked staff to review existing rules and impacts. Both, along with Toronto, have asked the province for clearer regulations. Centre Wellington and Sault Ste. Marie are sussing whether they can pass temporary bans.

Ford has resisted calls for a province-wide ban, saying local councils will still have a say and that he’d “rather go to a willing host.” While Ontario law requires municipalities to indicate their support before a wind or solar farm can be developed (usually through a council motion or resolution), no such formal rule was proposed in the data centre playbook.

What does Doug Ford mean when he says Ontario needs data centres to address ‘data sovereignty’?

Both Ford and various companies aspiring to build data centres in Ontario have framed this push as a matter of national security: keep the servers here or risk losing control of Canadians’ data to countries like the United States. 

But it’s harder said than done. Yes, building data centres would mean Ontarians’ data is kept in Ontario physically. But what actually determines control over data isn’t the building’s location — it’s who owns the company running it, and which country’s courts and laws they’re accountable to.

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 2026 wildfire season in Canada, which has been particularly severe in Ontario, has prompted significant interest on social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok.
• Many of these posts contain misinformation, including AI-generated maps with incorrect details on the locations or severity of fires across Canada, or conspiracy theories linking wildfires to lasers, 15-minute city initiatives or eco-terrorism.
• Many posts focus on mismanagement and place blame on Canadian governments, which complicates valid critiques of wildfire response and funding with destabilizing misinformation.

Ontario is grappling with one of the worst wildfire seasons in recorded history, which has put thousands of people, especially those in the province’s north, at risk. Last month, two Indigenous communities — Namaygoosisagagun First Nation and Whitewater Lake First Nation — were burned to the ground. The scale of the crisis has made headlines around the world, and prompted a blaze of posts on social media.

But many of those posts contain misinformation, both AI-generated and hand-crafted: maps that purport to show Ontario wildfires labelled with communities that don’t exist; false information about air quality and evacuation alerts; captions with conspiracy theories about 15-minute cities and arson. 

Look closely and you might see clues about what’s real and what isn’t. One viral AI-generated graphic purports to show the location of Ontario wildfires, but directs people to a non-existent Ontario government website. Another, claiming 10,000 people in Alberta were under evacuation orders as of July 16 (not true), includes a map where Jasper National Park appears to cover most of the province. One map puts Ontario on the West Coast, Quebec over the southern United States and Alberta up around Alaska — and includes a province called “Onjebio,” where the wildfire situation looks pretty bad. 

But just as often, it’s hard to tell fact from fiction. And it’s getting harder: in May, Statistics Canada reported 43 per cent of Canadians find it more difficult to distinguish between facts and misinformation online, compared to three years ago. Those with less trust in news media reported even more difficulty. 

Each year, it seems, the onset of wildfire season in Canada is accompanied by the onset of wildfire misinformation season on social media. As AI-generated content becomes more ubiquitous — and often tougher to spot — across social media, it presents new challenges to Canadians looking for trustworthy information about unfolding crises across the country. Wildfires are getting worse because of climate change. But what’s driving the escalation of misinformation?

2023 marked a shift in online wildfire misinformation

Gwen Roley, a digital verification journalist covering Canada for the international outlet Agence France-Presse, recently reported on some of the AI-generated maps spreading across social media platforms. “The labels on it were really wonky, and the symbols for the wildfires didn’t make sense,” she says. Roley has covered wildfire misinformation extensively, and there are certain trends that pop each year — “eco-terrorists, directed energy weapons,” also known as lasers — but this year’s maps struck her as a new trend. 

Roley has been debunking wildfire misinformation since 2023 — a “really superlative year, as we all remember,” she says. In addition to being the worst year for wildfires in Canada so far, there were also devastating fires in Hawaii. “These were almost like never-before-seen events, very scary events, where people are looking for explanations,” she says. In some parts of Canada, wildfires are familiar, even if the scale of recent years is not. But when wildfires rage in New Brunswick or the Northwest Territories or Hawaii, they may prompt more fear — and more speculation — than usual. When something that feels extraordinary happens, people are inclined to look for extraordinary explanations: even back in 1954, residents of Bellingham, Wash., became convinced hydrogen bomb tests or space rays were responsible for a sudden rash of damage to car windshields. 

Climate change denial, likewise, is not a new phenomenon. Chris Russill is an associate professor in the school of journalism and communication at Carleton University, where he’s also an academic director of Re.Climate, a centre focused on public engagement and climate communication. He says denial or skepticism of climate science dates back decades. 

But he agrees 2023 was an inflection point for wildfire misinformation online. Some of that was because of what was happening in the real world, such as the impact of Canadian fires on American air quality. 

But many were linked to shifts happening on major social media platforms: “Elon Musk had just bought Twitter,” he recalls. The Canadian government had passed the Online News Act, an attempt to make foreign social platforms pay to share news. Instead, Russill remembers, “Meta was refusing to negotiate with journalists around the News Act and stripped out Canadian journalism [from its platforms Facebook and Instagram].” It was also the first wildfire season since the widespread adoption of generative artificial intelligence; within two months of its release in November 2022, ChatGPT had more than 100 million monthly active users.

That chain of events is definitely still reverberating today: though Canadian news has been banned by Meta since 2023, a majority of Canadian users still don’t know that, according to a June 2026 report by the Media Ecosystem Observatory at McGill University. Of 1,518 Canadians surveyed for the report, only one in four Instagram users knew that news outlets in Canada could not publish on Meta platforms. Many people believe they’re seeing news on Facebook and Instagram when what they’re seeing is misinformation and conspiracy theories. And users searching Google for wildfire updates are shown AI-generated summaries, which launched in Canada in October 2024, and may contain inaccuracies. (Over the August long weekend, a Narwhal editor looking for air quality information at a lake in the B.C. Interior was shown a summary that incorrectly stated the lake was closed — information pulled from social media posts about two different places that were closed.)

Russill also attributes the 2023 sea change to the post-pandemic atmosphere of suspicion. “There was a more adversarial, conspiratorial way that climate was being dragged into other culture-war type issues that were becoming more and more salient through the [COVID-19] period,” he says.

This year, once again, Canadian wildfire smoke is impacting the United States, triggering posts from President Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform and AI-generated graphics that distort the impact of smoke on Americans.

Who benefits from wildfire misinformation on social media? 

As much as they complain about it, Russill says American politicians are also finding an opportunity in the effects of wildfire smoke on air quality. 

“The U.S. politicians, MAGA politicians, definitely have an interest in leveraging narratives — misinformation, conspiracies, false and misleading content — around wildfires to pursue a narrative they have about Canada as a bad neighbour, and leveraging that for trade and security,” he says. In a post on July 17, Trump threatened that the “cost of this pollution must of necessity be added to the TARIFFS Canada is currently paying.”

Researchers call this “participatory disinformation,” in which political leaders and influencers seed disinformation across platforms, and it’s then amplified and reproduced by ordinary users, in this case shaping online narratives about extreme weather events. (Disinformation is distinguished from misinformation by the intentions of the person sharing it. While people may unintentionally share misinformation, disinformation is false information shared on purpose.)

The McGill report on Canadian news notes, “When journalism loses visibility on social media, it is not replaced by nothing — it is replaced by content that serves a different function.” Conspiracy theories and images that distort the reality of wildfires get engagement, and a real crisis presents a fertile opportunity for content generation. 

Ad revenue from Google and other ad exchanges is another motivating factor, the Media Ecosystem Observatory also reported in June: the push behind a coordinated, international network of Facebook accounts pushing “news slop” — AI-fabricated stories — onto Canadian users. 

It’s easy for everyday users to get caught up in spreading untruths, too. Across social media, engagement is currency, which may provide an incentive to use the most dramatic or striking images without checking — or caring — about accuracy. “You can find a real map that you can very easily take a screenshot of that is using real data,” Roley says. But the real maps aren’t as dramatic as the AI-generated ones, “where it looks like all of Ontario has been burnt to a crisp, or one of the videos I saw where it looks like the wildfires are visible from space.” And lingering on those images — even if we’re skeptical of them — rewards the algorithm. 

As Russill points out, it’s “faster, easier and cheaper than ever before to generate fake and misleading content with AI.” It’s also easy to see what does well with your audience, and react accordingly, he says. “Like, let’s make the smoke bigger. Let’s put a fleeing polar bear in there. Who knows, right?” Some people may be diehard believers in climate conspiracies, and others might be deliberately seeding disinformation, but some are almost certainly agnostic to the culture wars; they just want the engagement. 

Whether users want to gain followers or further a political agenda, Russill says, they have “almost nothing to lose.” While AI posts may be flagged and removed on some platforms, it’s easy to replace them. “In these moments like wildfire evacuations and emergencies, this surges forward because it’s a real high engagement opportunity,” he says. 

This happened in 2025, he adds, prompting the BC Wildfire Service to warn of AI-generated images circulating on social media. And it’s happening this year, too.

From climate change denial to ‘mismanagement’: the narrative online has shifted

Misinformation typically downplays or denies the role of climate change in worsening wildfires, and displaces it onto other, implausible explanations. A few years ago, it was space lasers and 15-minute cities.

But no part of the world’s media ecosystem is free of Trump’s influence, including reporting on wildfires. After the 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles, which killed 31 people, the president blamed mismanagement of California forests. (Experts attributed the disaster to climate change, prolonged drought and southern California’s high winds, which spread the fire rapidly.)

“So the impacts people were seeing were a result of government mismanagement, not climate, not other types of things,” Russill says. The same argument is now being directed at Canada; in July, a Michigan senator posted on X, “Unless you want to become the 51st state, learn to manage your forests.” Such a task would be impossible in Canada, which has 369 million hectares of forest — covering more than a third of its landmass — 260 million of which is boreal forest in the sparsely populated north. Much of these forests have never been “managed,” but are experiencing more severe and frequent wildfires because the planet is getting hotter, a crisis that cannot be solved with rakes.

In part, this is a problem of our own making. In 2023, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dodged a question about climate change and wildfire by pivoting to arsonists. And she’s not the only Canadian leader minimizing the severity of the climate crisis, while pushing more fossil fuel investments. “As politicians everywhere have gotten more quiet about climate, it becomes more difficult for people to understand why these [wildfire] situations are becoming much more unmanageable,” Russill says. 

The question of government responsibility is legitimate, he adds. There are valid criticisms of the Ontario government’s response to recent wildfires, or its habitual underfunding of emergency wildfire response. But in a news ecosystem rife with disinformation, it can be hard to balance valid criticism with simply undermining Canadian authorities. “It’s being leveraged as a frame in which to challenge and create distrust of authorities during these moments of crises in a more substantive way,” he says. 

Wildfire misinformation can bring real-world risk to Canadian firefighters — and everyone else

AI-generated images are annoying and possibly being weaponized to destabilize democracy. What researchers don’t know yet is if they are also putting individual lives at risk. 

“One of the things I would be curious to know is how it’s impacting people’s understanding of wildfires,” Roley says. “Like, is someone fleeing from their home because they saw this AI-generated map? I have no idea.” 

Wildfire agencies are now also spending precious time and resources combatting misinformation or pushing back on AI-generated images — especially when it targets them. Russill says that degrades trust that is already wearing thin. “In B.C., you know, BC Wildfire is not trusted by every rural community that experiences wildfire, so they already have that issue to deal with.” The effect of untruths and conspiracy theories on public trust is just one of the mental health stresses faced by frontline firefighters. 

Russill adds people might also be overly reliant on AI overviews to check for news on evacuation orders, park access or campfire guidelines. “But I think more likely it’s inducing a sort of widespread cynicism or distrust or confidence in people.” 

Online misinformation is a problem without a simple solution. Providing facts is important, but there is a depressingly robust body of research suggesting they’re not enough to change peoples’ minds or strongly-held beliefs.

“Certainly around moments of crisis like this, [providing fact checks] can introduce friction into the ways people are engaging with content,” Russill says. “Maybe they share a little less. Maybe they reset and ground-truth on something that’s happening, as opposed to letting their feelings start to overwhelm them.” 

Wildfires are still at their worst during hot, dry seasons; misinformation can burn all year long. At least for now, you can still limit your exposure to one of those risks by closing an app.

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.