The wildfire that tipped B.C. into a state of emergency this August was described as “a bomb going off” to Premier David Eby by a fire official. Flames from Bald Range, in the interior of the province, grew to heights of 90 metres as the fire spread rapidly after igniting on Aug. 7. More than 20,000 people in the region were evacuated. At least one person died while trying to flee. And all of that is due to just one of more than 100 fires burning across the province.

Experts around the world have called extreme fire weather our “new normal” and Eby even used the term at a press conference earlier this week. But as fire scientist Mike Flannigan looks at B.C.’s wildfires of the past, he rejects the term. “We’re moving into uncharted territory. This is our new reality. Some people might say ‘normal,’ but to me, normal sounds like a plateau. We’re on a trajectory, and it’s downward.” 

Flannigan is a professor of wildland fire at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops whose expertise has earned him the BC Innovation Research Chair in predictive services, emergency management and fire Science. He’s been studying fire for decades. He recently spoke to The Narwhal from Kamloops and shared some data that showed a dramatic increase in area burned across the province in the last 10 years compared to the previous six decades. We asked him to break down what this all means for the future of wildfires in B.C. and the country.

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

What are the conditions in Kamloops right now? How’s the air quality there?

We got a bit of relief today. It’s better. I went out without a mask today because it was good enough. But the last week has been horrific. Just awful, awful air quality. I’m sick and tired of this smoke. You want to enjoy summer, and it’s hard to enjoy it when you’re either trapped indoors or choking on smoke.

We’re in mid-August and there are currently more than 100 wildfires burning across the province and thousands of people have been evacuated. What are you thinking as you look at Canada and B.C. right now?

We’ve had three bad fire seasons in Canada immediately prior to 2026. About eight per cent of our forests burned 2023 to 2025, and there’s no modern analog for this. We’ve never had three fire seasons like we’ve just seen. 

And my narrative up to now has always been: yes, there’ll be bad fire seasons, but there’ll be cooler, wetter years, and the fire season will be quiet. I still believe that regionally. Like, Ontario’s had a bad fire season this year. Next year may be really quiet. 

But nationally, we’re such a big country that every year, somewhere we’re going to see this combination or episodes of dry fuels, ignitions and hot, dry, windy weather. You get all three, you have fire. 

In Canada, about three per cent of fires are responsible for 97 per cent of our area burned. Much of this happens on a relatively small number of days of hot, dry, windy conditions. We call them ‘spread days,’ and that’s when you see explosive fire growth, like we saw in the Bald Range fire. 

It’s really important people report fires right away if they see a wildfire, because all fires start small and that’s our window. If you don’t get on top of it within 30 minutes, the horse has left the barn.

What causes ‘spread days’?

What we’re seeing is a lot more extreme fire weather in large measure due to climate change. And I’ll be even more specific: human-caused climate change. A warmer world for Canada means more fire. 

The warmer we get, the longer the fire seasons are and we’re seeing that across Canada. 

Second, the warmer we get, the more lightning we expect. Now, in Canada, just over half of our fires are started by lightning, but they’re responsible for about 92 per cent of our area burned.

The third reason is probably the most important. As the atmosphere warms, the ability to suck moisture out of dead forest floor fuels increases rapidly. The forecast for the future is we’re not going to see enough rain. Bottom line? It means more of that fuel on the forest floor has dried out and is available to burn, which leads to these higher intensity fires that are difficult or impossible to extinguish. 

I would argue that B.C. is the pointy end of the climate change spear in terms of fire in Canada. We have seen an abrupt increase. 

To me the big driver is extreme fire weather and ignitions. I have lots of colleagues who want to blame what we see on land management, forest management, fuel build-up. They are playing a role, but they’re really minor. It is extreme fire weather conditions. 

Recent studies suggest more than 1.5 million people prematurely die every year globally due to wildland fire smoke, and that number is only going to increase as we see more larger populations impacted by smoke.

You recently looked at how much area has burned in B.C. going back to the 1950s. What did you notice?  

There were big years in the past. 1958 was an active year. 2003 was an active year. The Barriere fire in 2003 devastated part of the town. Kelowna had a number of homes lost. But more area has burned this year than in 2003. That was really a big fire year in those years. Now it’s considered not that much. 

In 2017 it’s like somebody flipped the switch. It was record-breaking. Followed by 2018, which was record-breaking. Then came along 2023, which said, ‘Oh, I’m going to almost double you’ and broke a record. 2023 the whole province was on fire. 2024 and 2025 were active in the northeast, not so much down south. 

2026 is mostly the Cariboo and southern regions that are seeing the fire. If you look at a drought map, you’ll see that’s where the drought is. Drought doesn’t guarantee fire, but sets the stage for an active fire season.

Is there a way to contextualize how much area in B.C. burned in 1950 to 2016 compared to 2017 to 2026? 

A fair bit more area burned between 2017 and 2026 than the previous 67 years, 1950 to 2016.

2026 is still burning as we speak. To put the numbers in context, the area burned in the first 67 years — 1950 to 2016 — is just over twice the size of Vancouver Island. Whereas the last decade is trying to approach three times the size of Vancouver Island in 10 years versus 67 years.

What are the most urgent takeaways this data is showing?

It is showing that the impacts of climate change on fire activity are here and are worsening. There’s a couple ways they’re worsening. 

Historically, nighttime temperatures went down, relative humidity went up, the wind generally went down. The fire would go quiet, firefighters could catch their breath and prepare for the next day. Now we’re seeing fires burning into and through the night. Fire management, to their credit, has responded by fighting fire at night. They have night vision helicopters in places like B.C., Alberta, California. But that’s one challenge. 

An even bigger challenge is we’re seeing the intensity of these fires increase. There are recent studies showing globally where the increases are occurring, and western North America and the boreal forests are playing a major role. 

Many of these are what we call pyrocumulonimbus, fire-generated thunderstorms. These are monsters. Fire management cannot fight these. The only strategy is to get out of the way.  

How can looking at the past six decades help us today?

I would say we need to look even farther back in time. We’re in uncharted territory. There is no historical analog for this kind of rapid increase in fire activity. 

There’s a recent paper by Chelene Hanes and others that looks at changes in the fire regime from 1959 to 2024. We’re seeing larger fires and we had been seeing lightning fires increase, but human-caused fires were going down. We were all patting ourselves on the back, saying, “Hey, you know education’s working. Fire bans are working.” 

But this most recent study is now detecting an upswing in human-caused fires. Are people becoming more careless? I don’t think so. It’s because the fuels are drier that it’s more receptive whether it’s lightning strikes or human activities. Most fires are accidental. Arson does play a role, unfortunately, but typically a fairly small number of fires are started by arson. There’s other things that start fires like our infrastructure, power lines, railways, burning trash, agricultural burning, four-wheel vehicles and quads.

Another tool is forest closures. In some years, you may never have to close the forest, but when it’s extreme, you should close the forest. Unpopular, of course, with industry and people who want to do recreation, but it’s a very effective tool, and allows fire management.

What questions should emergency management and researchers be asking when looking at these numbers?

How can we be better prepared for the future? Every community should have an emergency management plan for fire and floods, but include climate change. Metro Vancouver has a really good emergency management plan. Not only does it deal with fire, but also talks about climate change and the expected increase in fire activity. 

We should be looking at FireSmart, making it mandatory in high-risk locations to protect homes and buildings. We should be providing funding or incentives to make that happen. It’s kind of happening through insurance already. 

I’ll give you another positive example. Jasper is rebuilding and they’re making two FireSmart principles mandatory: using non-flammable building materials and making a 1.5 metre buffer zone around your home non-flammable. Fire typically enters a community through a rain of embers — burning bits of twig, bark, sometimes even pine cones — and it’s probing. It’s opportunistic. It’s looking for something to burn. It lands on mulch or a conifer shrub right beside your home. Your home catches fire and then your neighbour’s home catches fire. Domino, just the whole block goes. 

Continuing to educate the public is also a path forward. 

I also advocate for a national firefighting force. In the last three years, about two-thirds of the days in 2023 to 2025, we did not have enough resources in Canada, so we called on the United States. This year, the United States is having a very active fire season having nothing to spare. Right now, we have firefighters from Mexico, New Zealand and Australia. There’s talk about the Canadian Armed Forces. We should have a FEMA-type agency, a Federal Emergency Management Agency, to deal with fire, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes. We’re the only G7 country without one. 

We have an early warning system for hurricanes. Why can’t we do that for fire? I am doing fire weather outlook right now as a first step in our early warning system. It’s a research project that is publicly available. We have models to predict fire occurrence, lightning, and human caused. So, if we know where the extreme fire will be, and if we know where the new fire starts will be, we should be moving resources proactively ahead of time to those locations. It will cost money, absolutely. But if it saves one Jasper, one Fort McMurray, one Summerland, it kind of pays for itself.

Looking at this data, it can feel pretty bleak. Are you feeling any hope?

I used to be more optimistic than I am. Our track record with dealing with greenhouse gases is abysmal. Building another pipeline is like adding a nail in our coffin. We really have to get off fossil fuels. I don’t know what else I can say. I just see, “drill, baby, drill” and “build, baby, build” and rather than a serious thoughtful conversation of, ‘How can we build a better Earth for the next generation?’ ’’

We need to do something as a global society, and not just for fire. I would like to leave the place better than we found it, and we’re not doing that. We’re making it much worse than what we found it. People can change behaviour. We can change.

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.

As you bite into a juicy peach this summer, thank Niagara. The southern Ontario region grows more than half of Canada’s tender fruits: more than 70 per cent of our peaches, plus many fragrant baskets of nectarines, plums, pears, cherries, grapes and apricots. 

Despite the bounty, climate change is taking a toll. Sour cherries took the hit this year, the industry group Ontario Tender Fruit says, with the crop all but wiped out by a cold winter and late frost. A summer of extreme heat and smoky skies have made farm work difficult, even dangerous. As weather becomes more intense and erratic, harvests across the country become unpredictable, too. 

Jay Subramanian’s job is to tackle that uncertainty. The University of Guelph professor works at the Vineland Research & Innovation Centre in Niagara, combining modern genetics and age-old techniques to develop futuristic tender fruit. Right now, he’s trying to breed peaches that last longer, both before and after being picked. In the orchard, growers could spare workers a day of harvest during extreme heat. At home, we’d have an extra day to enjoy them, reducing food waste. 

The process for breeding flowering plants is centuries old. First, you identify varieties with different desirable qualities. Then, you take pollen from “variety X,” as Subramanian puts it, and paste it onto the stigma — the sticky tip of the flower — of “variety Y.” Then, you see what grows. If the fruits of his labour bear the desired qualities, he consults a panel to make sure the new variety also has the right “colour, shape, taste, everything that is appealing.” 

Bringing a new variety to the public takes years. 

The market value of Ontario’s tender fruit was more than $94 million in 2025, and that figure doesn’t account for the wider industry around it. Yet Subramanian says finding money to protect it isn’t easy. The only recent government funding for developing climate-resilient tender fruit varieties in the province — from data collection and research to education and breeding — was slightly more than $1 million from the federal government. And that was two years ago. 

This lack of support, he says, is one reason the country’s crop of fruit breeders is shrinking.

“We used to have like 10 people or 12 people in Canada when I joined,” Subramanian, who was born in India, says. “Now it has gone down to four. And if any of us retire, the writing is on the wall. That has to change. That has to come not from us, not from the university. It has to come from somewhere above.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. 

How are Ontario’s peach crops being affected by climate change? 

Jay Subramanian: I joined this job not too long ago — 24 years, but it’s not a very long period in crop evolution and things like that. Then, the first peaches here were harvested in the last week of July. [This year], we are already starting to see peaches ripen on July 10 — almost a three-week advancement within three decades.

That tells you how alarming the situation is in terms of climate change. Neither the breeder nor the marketing people nor the consumer can put something on the calendar like our parents or grandparents used to do — ‘Okay, this week I am going to get peaches from the farmers’ market and then do canning in my home.’ That’s all out of whack. 

[This July] we had temperatures crossing almost 33 C, 34 C, and that’s also not good. When you go and look at the fruits, they are all burnt, as if they were just taken out of a barbecue on the top. It is that bad.

When I say the effects of climate change, I mean unpredictable and extreme weather, such as early or late frost, extreme heat, drought or too much rain. Today in mid-July in Toronto, it’s incredibly smoky because of fires up north. Is there anything I’m missing?

Another thing is our winters are not predictable anymore. Sometimes we have enough snow on the ground so that the groundwater is all filled up and the plants kind of muscle up during the winter. Sometimes we don’t get that. We just get a smattering of snow here and there and then we don’t have enough groundwater. That is also causing decline and unpredictability to the tender fruit crops.

What does this mean for you, as a breeder and a scientist? What is your day-to-day when you’re trying to make these fruits as climate-resilient as you can?

Just to back up, tender fruit breeding is a very long process. The varieties that we release now were bred 25 years ago. So I have to have a vision or a crystal ball to know what is going to happen — 25 years from now, what is going to happen? That is just not possible. 

Looking at what is going to happen, how we are going to breed, that is going to be challenging. But we are also contributing to global warming and climate change. When you have produce like tender fruits going to a landfill, they emanate quite a bit of methane and nitrous oxide when they are rotting. Nitrous oxide takes six times longer than a carbon molecule to get settled down back in the earth, so it is going to be up there in the atmosphere for much longer.  

We are trying to breed varieties that would stay better so that it doesn’t go to the landfill, varieties of tender fruits that will remain on the shelf and in the consumer’s house for two or three days extra. Twenty to 30 per cent of produce is wasted by the consumer. That is the part that I can control within my career, within my lifetime. 

On the front end, an early peach that is ripening now, or a late peach that’s going to ripen in September, they all flower at the same time. They all flower within that two-week window in May. But then, from flowering to fruit maturity, that time for some is short. For some, it is long. 

So we are trying to work on that one: if it flowers on day X, it is going to ripen 70 days after flowering. This part as a geneticist, as a breeder, we can control. It’s a long process, but that is doable by using modern genetics. It is a slow and patient study, but I’d be more than happy to take the initiative on that because I’m the only one left in Canada.

You’re the only what left in Canada?

Only tender fruit breeder, only peach breeder left in Canada. If I retire, R.I.P. for this position.

How did that happen?

That’s a good question. Almost all through the world, for any publicly funded research program, they are looking at the industry to support this breeding. If you take a place like California, yes, their industry is huge — by even getting something like five cents from an agricultural check-off fund, they can support like five scientists. Certain crops, like corn, soybean, canola, wheat, these are huge industries. It’s easy. It’s possible. 

But our industry here is just very, very tiny. It is a very vital industry because we supply more than 50 per cent of tender fruits for Canada from this tiny little bowl in the south corner of Ontario. So that value is something people in power have to recognize.

In terms of the science, can you say a bit more? You want more control over the ripening process?

Well, ripening is a very long scientific process. Over the past 75 years, there’s quite a bit of study that has gone into the ripening process, how it is managed, what are all the genes involved and all those things. Using genetics, we can either accelerate it or we can delay it. That part we can do by breeding.

We know the genetics, we know what variety X can do, what variety Y can do, what we expect when we hybridize X and Y, things like that. If we take varieties that are ripening early, and if we put that pollen on the flowers that are ripening late, can we get something in-between? 

Along with ripening, I assume you’re also working, for example, on trees that are more resilient if there’s too much rain, or not enough rain.

To some extent, we can control that part by genetics. Another thing that we are working on is to make sure the varieties that we develop are resistant to some of the diseases. We are in Niagara, and the place is normally rainy and humid, and this is a heaven for pathogens like fungus and bacteria to grow. Especially when they see the fruits — fruit is full of sugar — and then they just go kaboom after that. 

By breeding varieties that are naturally resistant, we are also reducing the number of sprays that a farmer has to do. In that way, you can also help reduce climate change effects, because the operation of the machine, the pesticides themselves, all those things contribute to climate change. 

Is there a success that you’ve had in your career worth highlighting?

It’s a little bit early, but I think I have enough conviction to say that we are now developing a new series of peaches that can stay a little longer on the tree, on the shelf, as well as on the consumer table. Significantly longer, and they still taste very much like the normal peach. In fact, some of them are much sweeter. 

Probably in the next five, six years, we will be releasing varieties belonging to that particular group. Some of the press people call them the ‘neat peach.’

I personally really love a messy peach, though. I feel like that’s part of the peach experience. 

That is because we are here [in southern Ontario]. We are spoiled with the good stuff.

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.

“I’m often mind-blown when I see the photo show up on my camera,” Sonny Parker tells me. He lives in the small town of Haines Junction, Yukon, alongside one of the largest populations of grizzly bears in the territory. 

In recent years, Parker has become a bit obsessed with camera traps — remote cameras that allow him to capture images of wildlife when he’s not there. The thing about these kinds of cameras is a lot of the photos are “just garbage,” he tells me.

“Inevitably … you put all this effort and time into setting them up and in certain ways, and then often come back and check them two weeks later, only to find out there was a twig in front of them being blown by the wind and triggering the camera.”

The Narwhal hired Parker to photograph grizzly bears and the people who call Haines Junction home for an in-depth feature about what it’s like to share space with these massive mammals. People in the small community are proud of their positive relationship with bears, Parker tells me. 

And while he’s still working out the kinks of remote photography, the more than 80 photos he submitted for us were absolutely stunning.

“Every once in a while you get those one per cents … and then it also motivates me to keep going,” Parker says.I sat down with Parker to get into the weeds with him about how exactly he photographs grizzly bears and what he hopes people learn from seeing these photos. 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

These photos blew me away. Can you walk me through your process? 

So when most people think of camera traps, they might think of like your typical kind of game camera that you can strap to a tree really quickly. They run on a bunch of AA batteries, and those can provide really great photos and videos these days, but they’re not really the same quality that you’d get out of a proper DSLR or mirrorless camera.

The idea is [a DSLR camera] can all be self-contained in this protective housing, and then the lens pokes out the front end here. So this would basically be wirelessly hooked up to this infrared sensor, which is the same idea as the game cameras that most people have, but this way I can customize where I put the sensor, which is actually going to trigger the camera to fire. There’s a bunch of components, and I can customize the frame rate, how many photos and then obviously where the flashes are positioned to get the lighting that I’m hoping for. 

So that photo of the bear climbing the tree, that had a flash associated with it?

That’s right. That was on a rub tree, which they use a lot to communicate to other bears what they’re doing in the area and that type of thing. Those nighttime photos definitely need flashes. I do try to avoid, as much as I can, using flash with certain species because they can be a little bit disturbing, and I try to do my best to eliminate any factors that can disturb the animals. Obviously, you can’t eliminate all of that, but I really try to put the effort in to do my best.

How long does it take? 

Some of the locations are easier to get to, and if I’m really experimenting with some new equipment, I might try in a more easily accessible area where I can go every few days on foot to check it. But usually, once I have my system pretty dialled, I’ll try to avoid checking the camera too often just to eliminate that extra piece of the disturbance puzzle by just me being in the area. So I try to leave them in an area where I only need to go back every two or three weeks.

But most of the time is just putting in the research and exploring before I even carry a camera around and figuring out where grizzly bears have been using areas, talking to lots of local people that have been here a lot longer than I have. Lots of people are willing to share — a big shout-out to my friend and also professional photographer Peter Mather, who’s from the Yukon as well. He’s done tons of camera trapping over the years and has actually been a huge mentor to me in everything photography-wise. So he’s been really generous with his time and sharing advice and how to best go about using camera traps and in wildlife situations.

Tell me a little bit about access to grizzly bears and living in Haines Junction.

Haines Junction is a beautiful little town. I think the population is just a bit under 1,000 these days. It’s just on the edge of Kluane National Park and Reserve in southwestern Yukon, which is a hot spot for grizzly bears. People have been coexisting with grizzly bears in the Haines Junction area for thousands of years.

There’s been histories of conflicts that happen everywhere, but in my mind it’s a really special place because people tend to have a higher tolerance of bears just in and around the communities than a lot of places, especially in regards to grizzly bears. It’s pretty special that way. I think people just inherently acknowledge that grizzly bears have been living here for longer than people have, and most people really try to do what they can to continue that relationship. 

Why are you specifically interested in trying to photograph bears, given how challenging it can be?

They’re just such special creatures. They’re super smart. Each bear has such a unique personality, and I think it really makes them quite relatable from a human perspective. Because of how charismatic they are as individuals, it makes them fun to photograph. 

And then also just because they are these huge, powerful animals that can cause a lot of damage if there’s conflict situations, and there’s this inherent fear of them built into people naturally as these large animals that can kill you. But they’re so conflict-avoidant naturally, and I’d like to think most people are that way as well. In that regard, it just really makes it super interesting to bridge that gap, and hopefully having some intimate images can help people see bears in a different way. Often the media really promotes these kinds of negative conflict-based stories and I’m hoping that some visuals can help tell the other side of the story.

I was particularly blown away by the photo where there are mountains in the background, and it’s sort of a flat area, and there’s a pretty big bear just staring directly at the camera. Can you talk a little bit about how you created that photo?

So that was definitely one where I used a camera trap. That bear had probably come out of hibernation a couple weeks before. Usually grizzly bears den up in the alpine and then they move down to valley bottoms as the snow melts to access those first plants that are greening up. In some areas in the mountains around here, there’s mountain goats and Dall sheep that are having their babies. They’re not excellent predators in general, but if they can get a chance at coming across a young lamb or a young mountain goat kid that hasn’t quite got its legs under it yet, they’ll definitely try to take those. So I thought it would be pretty neat to find some of these alpine areas where bears might be looking for baby sheep or baby goats.

It probably was about a two-hour hike from the highway. Not super tough, but lugging all that heavy camera trap gear, it adds up, especially when you have to go back a few times to check the camera. So this one, I think, I had out for about two weeks, give or take. As soon as I was walking up to where I knew the camera was, I noticed the camera wasn’t there. So I was like, ‘Oh, am I going crazy, or did something happen?’ And then I look, and the camera’s 15 or 20 feet down a little rocky cliff, and it’s all bashed up. The lens was kind of bent sideways.

I didn’t have these nice housings that I do now. So the camera not only had it tumbled down, but it had been exposed to rain and stuff. So I couldn’t even turn it on when I checked it. I packed up everything, hiked back down and hiked back home. Luckily, the memory card was still fine. I got back home and put it in the computer and sure enough, the first photo I saw was just this blur of rock and sky, I think triggering as it was tumbling down the cliff. And then I flicked through a few of those, and then the next photo I saw was that amazing big round bear face. 

We’re in this new age where there are a lot of fake images on the internet. Has anybody ever asked you before if this is AI?

No one, no one has asked me, but I think the world of AI and image generation is progressing so fast. It’s mind-blowing. So I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future I start getting more and more questioning of certain types of photos, especially those photos that are really unique. It’s a little bit troubling for sure to guess where this world of AI and image generation is going. But part of me wants to believe that there’s always going to be ways to create really special images that AI will never quite be able to replicate.

What do you hope people take away from seeing these bears up close?

Just being able to get an intimate view into a bear’s world. And hopefully instilling that respect, but maybe dissolving a bit of the fear factor. That would really be my main goal. It’s hard because everyone has different reactions to these things. But if people can somehow find ways to view these animals through a lens of maybe curiosity versus fear as their first reaction, that would be my main hope. Because ultimately curiosity leads to more caring and more questions and ultimately, hopefully, more willingness to facilitate coexistence.

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.

What a week. Amidst the blur of World Cup shenanigans and Canada Day festivities, politicians dropped not one, not two, but three massive pipeline announcements. 

First, there was the multibillion-dollar federal commitment for infrastructure projects in B.C. What does this have to do with pipelines, you ask? Well, the agreement also included a promise to maintain the federal oil tanker ban off B.C.’s North Coast and $10 billion to upgrade the Roberts Bank export terminal (that’s the huge shipping terminal you can see from BC Ferries as you approach Tsawwassen, FYI). 

That brings us to the second announcement, which came just a few hours later when Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a plan for a southern route for a new oil pipeline to the West Coast that would largely follow the right-of-way for the Trans Mountain pipeline, except — surprise, surprise! — it would end at Roberts Bank. This theoretical pipeline would be planned and built by the federally owned Trans Mountain Corp., with Pembina Pipeline Corp. taking a 10 per cent stake in construction. Oh, and it would cost between $35 billion and $44 billion (mostly in taxpayer money).

As if that wasn’t enough to process, on Monday Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Smith proposed another pipeline called Northern Shield, which would take oilsands bitumen to refineries in Sarnia, Ont. There’s also no private backer for this pipeline and, notably, no formal federal support. The chief of Aamjiwnaang First Nation, meanwhile, says the nation hasn’t been consulted on the proposal thus far and notes it’s still in the midst of a benzene crisis and dealing with the fallout of a March 2026 pipeline spill.

The headlines have been coming so fast and furious, it’s been tough to keep up. I spent the week scouring the internet, trying to get my head around it all. Some of the most insightful commentary I came across was from Amy Janzwood, an assistant professor in political science and environment at McGill University — so I called her up to pick her brain on, well, all of it. 

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

What have you noticed about the pipeline discussion in the media over the last week? 

All the media coverage I saw has been stenography, basically. Just regurgitating all of the talking points of [Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Tim] Hodgson, Carney and Smith. It’s been extremely uncritical coverage. The kind of making of a pipeline out of literally nothing other than taxpayer dollars has been quite dizzying and shocking to see. 

The questions I was asked a year ago about pipeline politics are very different than the questions I get now. Before I’d get asked: “What’s the prospect of another major oil pipeline? Is this a political fantasy?” But now there’s a slippage into engaging on the terms of the Smith government. The lack of context I’ve seen in the reporting on this is in part because of the firehose of announcements, and media outlets are just not able to keep up.

You have noted before that legacy media often uncritically repeat the narratives of the oil industry. It sounds like you’re still seeing that? Are any particular examples coming to mind? 

Hodgson has basically become the voice of the industry and I see that repeated verbatim, without any kind of interrogation. One very clear example I see over and over again is the profitability narrative around the Trans Mountain pipeline when we know this is actually not a profitable pipeline. You could argue there are good reasons to have it and we can have that debate, but [federal politicians] like to say that this is a profitable pipeline, which is straight up not true, so that’s one example of things that I see kind of repeated very uncritically.

Given that it’s not a profitable pipeline, what are the real reasons you think we’re seeing such broad political support for it in this moment?

There has been incredibly powerful messaging from the Carney government that we can have it all. We’ve seen this misconstrual of economic anxiety, sort of pinned on the hopes of another pipeline, which couldn’t be further from the reality. 

Pipelines have become kind of a stand-in for the future of oil and gas. It’s become a stand-in for a lot of really difficult conversations.

Canadians are still broadly supportive of climate action and renewable energy, but they’re also more supportive of pipelines now than they have been for at least the last decade. What do you make of that contradiction? 

As political scientists, we’ve long known that public opinion can largely be shaped by our political elites. I’m not surprised when I hear things from our prime minister and minister of natural resources around the need to build more pipelines, that there is this slippage or confusion that this is going to reduce our reliance in any way on the U.S. If you’re not following this closely, then that sounds great, if you’re being told this is what we need to keep Canada prosperous and strong. 

But as someone who has studied pipelines for over 10 years, those are promises new pipelines will not be able to deliver on. I think the public has largely forgotten the cost and divisiveness about Energy East, about Northern Gateway, about Trans Mountain. Unless you’re directly affected and witnessing and experiencing the impacts of these projects, those costs to you, those environmental risks are not salient. It has long been difficult for folks to make that connection when we’re told this is necessary for our economy, and when the economic benefits are as overstated as they often are.

Canadians are repeatedly told that pipelines are what’s needed to keep Canada prosperous and strong. What are political leaders misrepresenting when they say that? 

Fundamentally when we’re talking about major new pipelines, you’re going to need significant greenfield oilsands expansion to fill it. [A greenfield project is a new project built on undeveloped land.] We’ve seen the economics of the oilsands have not been trending towards that for the last several years to decades. Investors in the oilsands were really pressuring companies to deliver on their dividends. There was not an appetite for massive new expansions; it was not economic and it still is not. It would actually harm the industry if they can’t fill the pipeline. 

If we’re now talking about a hypothetical West Coast pipeline, the volatility and the reliance on global oil prices and very uncertain demand … there is not a long-term case to be made for increasing oil expansion to the degree that would be required for a major new pipeline.

This is not economic for the industry, so this will be taxpayer-funded. And there’s no certainty about demand for this hypothetical oil that the industry does not seem willing to produce, although Smith has alluded to doing whatever she can to stimulate further oilsands production with additional provincial support. 

It’s quite misleading to suggest we would need a new pipeline to diversify away from the U.S. I do think we do need to have important conversations about how to become more resilient in light of having the Trump administration. But spending billions of dollars for a pipeline that we don’t think the industry can fill is not the way to do it. 

Politicians also increasingly claim that Canada can indefinitely expand oil and gas production while meeting our climate commitments. Is that actually possible?

The short answer is no. This myth was alive and well under the Trudeau government. The Trudeau government really pioneered this narrative that we can have Trans Mountain and the oil expansion that comes with it and meet our climate targets and use the money from Trans Mountain to pay for the clean energy transition.

The latest iteration of this argument is this promise of carbon capture and storage. My take is that this is something the industry has never really been serious about doing.

Since Pathways Alliance [now called Oil Sands Alliance] announced its carbon capture and storage project in 2022, we’ve seen absolutely no significant investment of any kind in this project. And we know that they’ve just quietly stepped back from the amount of emissions reductions they’re promising.

It’s been quite troubling to see the Carney government so unquestioningly provide this narrative that we can have decarbonized oil — which is, of course, a contradiction.

You have described expanding fossil fuel exports as like saving for retirement by doubling down at the casino. Can you explain why that is?

Let’s not forget that oil and gas is a relatively small part of Canada’s GDP … but looking at the media coverage, you would not know that. 

The conversation we’re having right now is a federal government that has continuously found new and ever-creative ways to subsidize fossil fuel expansions, whether that’s LNG [liquefied natural gas], oilsands or carbon capture and storage, and telling the public that this is necessary. 

Let’s set aside LNG for now (the economics of LNG are a bit different), but about oil specifically, this is an industry that’s had record profits that’s been unwilling to pay for its own pollution — it is a cost the industry has very successfully avoided, whether that’s orphan wells and cleanup or carbon. 

We’re told we need to double down and it’s necessary for economic prosperity. But what we’re seeing is the bill that’s racking up that taxpayers are on the hook for — when there’s an industry that can very well pay for it, and is unwilling to because they know they have a government that will backstop it. They now have a government that will buy a pipeline and that now has a state-owned pipeline company that is promising to be a backer for another new pipeline, which honestly, if you had told me that even 12 months ago, I would not believe you. It is absolutely mind-boggling. 

The Narwhal is going to be following all of these issues closely. If you have thoughts or a story tip email editor@thenarwhal.ca

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

• After leaving cabinet late last year, former environment minister Steven Guilbeault will vacate his seat in Parliament altogether this summer.
• He sees a fundamental difference in his approach to addressing climate change and that of Prime Minister Mark Carney.
• Despite his exit, Guilbeault says he made great strides during his time in government and encourages young people to consider politics.

Steven Guilbeault says if he were asked again to leave activism for politics, “I would do it in a heartbeat.”

As he prepares to resign his seat, the former Liberal environment minister has been called the most ambitious the country has ever had. He believes his time in government was worth it — that, by being on the inside, one can achieve great things. His message to young people interested in climate action: consider the political arena.

Still, Guilbeault leaves as several major environmental policies he had a hand in developing are being rolled back or brushed aside by the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney. Guilbeault believes the prime minister thinks global markets will take care of things largely on their own. He disagrees.

Last week, two former members of Canada’s legislated advisory body on climate said Carney needs to be honest about how his policies have made the promise to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 impossible. Guilbeault says the government is now facing two choices: keep its federal net-zero law in place and likely get sued by stakeholders for violating it, or repeal it and send a “powerful message” about how the prime minister sees the world.

Guilbeault spoke to The Narwhal for more than half an hour by phone on June 15. Reached for comment, Carney’s office said it is still committed to maintaining a path to net-zero emissions by 2050, but can’t rely solely on “restrictions and prohibitions.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

I want to start with an interview you gave in 2022 in The Guardian. You said, ‘I came into politics so I could continue to be an activist.’ In your recent speech in Parliament you said, ‘I fully intend to keep fighting.’ So if you needed to go in to be an activist, and now you’re coming out to be an activist, where does that leave things — is it better to be on the inside or the outside?

I think we need people both on the outside and on the inside. I would like to think that I have shown that by being on the inside, you can achieve things, you can set goals for yourself or as a party — like we, for the first time in our history, under the previous administration, have shown that through public policies, we can fight pollution and grow the economy. This has never been done before in the history of our country. 

We’ve shown that we can do great things when it comes to conservation, to improving environmental rights issues and environmental justice issues, including the right to a healthy environment in The Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Some of the work we have done using emergency orders, namely in Sarnia, Ont., with Aamjiwnaang First Nation, what we did on nature in 2022 at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Montreal — I think it is absolutely possible to be an activist inside.

My decision to leave politics is that I feel that, certainly when it comes to climate change … I can no longer continue to have an impact. That’s my own personal assessment, and obviously different people will come to different conclusions. But I can no longer have an impact inside, and it’s time for me to go back on the outside.

People in the climate space have expressed a sense of betrayal with Prime Minister Mark Carney on climate and the environment. They say, ‘What happened to the UN climate guy?’ and ‘What happened to the guy who wrote the book on values?’ Is that a feeling you share?

I’m not sure I would put it in those words. But if you look at the work he did with the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, it was largely based on voluntary commitments by companies, investors and financial institutions. There was really no transparency or accountability. I’m not saying it has no value, it certainly has value. We’re seeing how, globally right now, the markets are playing a really important role. Renewables are driving two times more investment than fossil fuels are, globally. One in four cars sold globally was an electric vehicle — not Europe, not Sweden or Norway, but globally. 

I could be wrong about this, but I think where the prime minister and I differ in terms of our views of what needs to be done on climate change, is that I have come to the conclusion that he thinks that the markets are going to do it. And that governments don’t have an important role to play, if only to put in place measures to attract investors and tax credits. 

I think we’re going to make some progress in Canada on taxonomy and disclosure, because the prime minister sees this as an important element to attract investment for decarbonization. But I don’t think he sees an important role for public policy, for regulations. I think we need markets to achieve what we want to achieve, but markets alone won’t get us there.

I think that’s perhaps something I had not understood before — and I suspect I’m not the only one — about his vision for change. I guess you could call it his theory of change, when it comes to fighting climate change.

It took several years for environment and climate policies to be dreamed up, consulted on, put into legislation or regulations and enacted. Relatively speaking, it’s been lightspeed to tear many of them down again over the past year. Why haven’t they proved more durable?

Well, it’s always easier to destroy than it is to build. That’s true of regulations, it’s unfortunately true of many things. [That’s] number one.

Number two: many of these things, despite what has been said publicly, are still in force. The clean electricity regulations are still in place. Many of the changes we said we would make on methane [emission reductions], the regulations that apply right now in Canada, are still the federal methane regulations that have been approved. So the [methane allowances] in the agreement with Alberta, they will need to go through the process of making regulatory changes, which is more complicated than switching something on and off.

But you’re right, by the looks of it, this is where we’re heading. And yes, you’re right, it was long and painstakingly difficult at times to put these things in place. But that’s the price to pay to live in a democracy. A duly elected government in a democracy can change things that previous governments have done, and that’s something we have to accept.

Do you think the days of Canada’s net-zero law — committing us to negating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and setting increasingly stringent targets to get there — are numbered?

I think a lot of people don’t realize that our 2030 and 2035 targets are not voluntary targets in Canada, they’re legally binding, and there will be consequences if Canada doesn’t meet those targets. It’s going to become painfully clear in the very near future that we won’t be able to achieve those targets, regardless of what the government continues to say. I mean, you can be committed to those targets and not have any chance of meeting them, so it’s a bit disingenuous to say that we are committed. 

I think they’re going to be faced with two difficult choices: either they keep the climate accountability act in place, and then what is likely going to happen is that the federal government is going to get sued by different stakeholders for not abiding by federal law. Or they have to repeal it, which would send a pretty powerful message to Canadians about how little this government is concerned with climate change.

If they did decide to repeal the law, to what would you compare that?

Well, with the United States, we would become one of a handful of countries in the world to basically turn our back on the Paris Agreement. That’s in effect what it would mean. And I suspect that you know it’s true that, right now, when you look at public opinion research, Canadians care more about other things than they care about climate, but they still care about climate change.

You talked about the prime minister putting faith in a market-based solution to climate action. Do you think that idea extends to his position on international agreements like the Paris Agreement, to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius?

That’s a good question. I mean, it is interesting that when you look at the spring economic statement, Canada renewed its climate finance commitment under the Paris Agreement, [committing billions toward climate change adaptation and climate-related businesses in “vulnerable countries”]. That is one area where Canada is still doing pretty good. We’ve slightly increased our climate finance package for the first time ever, we’ve set a goal of mobilizing funds with the private sector. The UK has reduced their climate fund, France has, the United States has. From that context, the fact that Canada would slightly increase theirs is, in and of itself, a small victory. And we’ll take all the victories we can take right now, right? 

The honest answer to your question right now is, I don’t know what his views are on that. But we may infer from our climate finance commitment that it is still something that’s important to him.

At the environment committee recently, Catherine Abreu and Simon Donner said the government didn’t want to hear from the net-zero advisory body. Does the Carney government not listen to experts?

We can still see that scientists and experts have a voice, and they can still express their opinion, which was a big difference from the Stephen Harper years.

I do think that there is a negative bias by this government towards regulations, and regulations are perceived by many as being some form of impediment to free markets and impeding investment. I would disagree with that analysis. You go back to 2024, for example, Canada came in second in the G20 for foreign direct investment in comparison to the size of our economy, while we were full-speed ahead deploying our climate change plan. So it seems that foreign investors didn’t have a problem with coming to Canada to invest, despite the fact that we had an aggressive plan to fight climate change. This idea that these two things are in opposition to one another doesn’t seem to stand the test of facts.

When you say the government holds a negative bias, are you talking about Prime Minister Carney specifically, or members of his cabinet, or senior officials or all of the above?

From what I’ve been able to observe, I think it’s the case that there are many people who feel this way, some on the political side, some on the bureaucracy side. I’m not saying everyone agrees with that idea, but certainly around the prime minister there are many, which is why we’re seeing such a push towards deregulation, because many people in positions of influence are pushing for this agenda. 

Unfortunately, we’re putting at risk the health of Canadians with some of the changes that are being proposed — whether it’s on impact assessment reform or pesticides management. I think we will likely quickly come to the conclusion that we’re doing so at a greater risk for Canadians.

Is there someone in particular you’re thinking of around the prime minister who is pushing for that deregulation?

I think it’s larger than one or two people. At least with people who have important portfolios on the economic side, I think it is a general perception.

What’s your message to young people now, who are just being introduced to the climate movement? They see you deciding to quit politics, talking about the backsliding that’s going on. They see you talking about getting into it in the 1990s. Maybe they’re a bit skeptical that there is the same sort of urgency and hope as there was in that decade. What’s your message to them?

My first message would be that we need good people in politics. I was there for almost seven years. In working with many others, I was able to achieve many things. There’s no way I could have helped to convince 196 countries to protect 30 per cent of the planet in Montreal in 2022 if I had stayed at Équiterre. Just not possible. 

The single-use plastics ban. My first bill in parliament was the creation of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. I was talking about the inclusion of a right to a healthy environment in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, new regulations on [toxic effluent from] the oilsands — we were able to do a lot of things. If I have to do it all over again, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I have colleagues who have, despite what is happening, decided to stay and fight the good fight from the inside. I think it’s a highly personal call. 

I was coming to the conclusion that by staying inside, I was becoming a tool to justify some of the things the government is doing, which I find to be unjustifiable. I was hearing from some people, ‘Well, if Steven is still there, then it’s probably not so bad.’ That’s one of the reasons I feel that it was time for me to leave. 

But what I would tell those young folks is, go into politics. If this is something you’re interested in, it’s an incredibly important arena to push for change.

What’s next for you?

I have not figured that out. I’m going with [the Students on Ice Foundation] in the Arctic this summer, 40 young Canadians, for almost two weeks. After that I’m going to start looking at what my options are. But I know that I’m going to keep working on issues of climate change and sustainability and nature, one way or the other.

After this story was published, a spokesperson in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office sent a statement to The Narwhal that said the government is “pairing smart regulation with major investment, partnership and market-based solutions” to deliver emissions reductions and tackle affordability, but added “we cannot rely on restrictions and prohibitions alone.” The spokesperson also highlighted the government’s methane reduction agreement with Alberta, $4-billion nature strategy and electricity strategy.

“As he has throughout his career, Prime Minister Carney will continue to take a pragmatic and balanced approach to climate action. One that cuts emissions, achieves Canada’s climate goals and strengthens the Canadian economy. Canada has been consistent in our commitment to maintain a path to net-zero by 2050, and we are taking practical steps to achieve real results,” the spokesperson said.

Updated on June 17, 2026, at 9:18 a.m. ET: This story was updated to add a statement from the prime minister’s office that was sent to The Narwhal after publication.

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.