Summary

• The Montreal-based tech firm Deep Sky is proposing to build a direct air carbon capture facility in southern Manitoba, and documents obtained by The Narwhal show the company has garnered support from First Nations, rural municipalities and at least one bank.
• Direct air carbon capture involves sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and then burying it deep underground. Deep Sky says its technology is “viable,” but critics have expressed skepticism.
• If built, the facility will require 15 megawatts of electricity to run — which is about enough to power 10,000 homes. Deep Sky hopes to connect to Manitoba’s electrical grid to obtain that energy.

A direct air carbon capture facility proposed for southwestern Manitoba has been shoring up allies in local and Indigenous governments and large corporations, as Montreal-based Deep Sky aims to convince the provincial government its project is ready to launch.

The venture-capital-backed tech firm sent the province a package of support letters late last year encouraging the government to provide the regulatory support and electric power supply needed for Deep Sky’s Manitoba facility to move forward, according to documents obtained by the Free Press and The Narwhal.

“Deep Sky Manitoba is not a speculative concept,” the company wrote in a December letter. 

“It is a commercially viable infrastructure project that is backed by real market demand and presents an economic opportunity for Manitoba on a global scale.”

Deep Sky is proposing a 145-acre facility in the agriculture and oil-dominant southwestern region that will scrub 30,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere each year and inject it into porous rock formations 1,000 metres below ground. The company says it will use technology first tested at its existing accelerator in Innisfail, Alta., and will finance the $200-million Manitoba project by selling carbon credits.

Deep Sky will need up to 15 megawatts of power — roughly the power draw of 10,000 homes — for the first stage of the project, CEO Alex Petre told The Narwhal and Free Press in December. 

The package included term sheets and letters of intent from five customers and investors, as well as support from local communities. 

While some of the documents are redacted under a section of the freedom of information act that protects corporate privacy, The Narwhal and the Free Press obtained copies of letters from the Dakota Grand Council, the rural municipalities of Pipestone and Two Borders, Frontier and the Bank of Montreal. 

“These documents illustrate that this project is ready to break ground,” the company wrote. 

“We have the customers and the support to bring this investment to the province. We are simply waiting for the final regulatory framework and the confirmation of power supply to unlock this investment.”

Direct air carbon capture: big promises, yet to be proven

Deep Sky’s proposal has been met with skepticism from area residents and climate action groups, who have posed questions about the safety, affordability and long-term impacts of direct air carbon capture. 

While oil and gas companies and some climate experts view the technology as a useful tool to help achieve global net-zero targets, critics say it is prohibitively expensive and not guaranteed to work.

Despite energy agencies, including the Canada Energy Regulator and Manitoba Hydro, predicting direct air capture will sequester millions of tonnes of emissions annually by 2050, facilities aren’t yet keeping pace. The two dozen facilities currently operating worldwide capture less than 10,000 tonnes per year.

But Deep Sky maintains its project will be able to succeed given Manitoba’s “natural advantages,” including suitable geologic conditions, a low-cost hydroelectric grid and a local workforce familiar with oil and gas operations.

The company recently sold North America’s first verified carbon removal credits after successfully storing carbon at its Innisfail facility, according to a press release Monday.

According to the December letter, it has now also secured “strong local buy-in” after hosting information sessions through the fall and winter. 

“Over the past year, we’ve engaged with Indigenous communities, municipalities, provincial partners and regional stakeholders across Manitoba to better understand local priorities and explore how this industry can create lasting economic opportunities for Manitoba,” Jason Vanderheyden, Deep Sky’s vice-president of government affairs and public policy said in an emailed statement. 

“All of these conversations continue to inform our approach as the project advances.”

Deep Sky points to First Nations support for proposed facility

Vanderheyden noted the company’s partnership with the Dakota Grand Council, a collaborative organization representing Manitoba’s Dakota nations.

In a letter to the province dated Dec. 5, 2025, Dakota Chiefs Dennis Pashe and Raymond Brown expressed “strong support for the Deep Sky Manitoba project,” noting it presents an opportunity to reverse “decades of economic exclusion in the region.” 

The project is anticipated to create between 750 and 1,000 jobs during construction, with around 100 permanent positions during operation. The Dakota council said it is working with Deep Sky to ensure its members are prioritized for these roles, and will explore equity opportunities through the relationship agreement. 

“Deep Sky’s Manitoba executive team engaged with us early, right from the start of the project and we found them to be extremely transparent,” Pashe said in an emailed statement. 

“They were also very informative when explaining the project and carbon removal technology, which is important when communities consider something new.”

The company will still need to complete impact and benefit agreements to receive consent from the Dakota Nation, he added.

Local rural governments come out in support of Deep Sky project

The package also included resolutions passed by the rural municipalities of Pipestone and Two Borders in early 2025 declaring support for carbon capture and storage projects, including the Deep Sky initiative, and urging Manitoba to amend its carbon storage rules in collaboration with the company.

Manitoba passed the Captured Carbon Storage Act in May 2024, outlining the legal framework for such projects. The accompanying regulations, which will outline the finer details of a company’s responsibilities when storing captured carbon, were initially expected this spring, according to a December interview with Manitoba’s Business, Mining, Trade and Economic Development Minister Jamie Moses.

It’s not yet clear when the regulations will be finalized.

In response to detailed questions from The Narwhal and the Free Press regarding the province’s support for Deep Sky’s proposal, progress on carbon storage regulations and the company’s power supply request, Moses’ office said in a three-sentence reply, “any decisions regarding that project will be communicated in the coming months” and consultation will continue to take place with affected communities.

Deep Sky looks for connection to provincial grid and hydroelectric power

Alongside local support, Deep Sky has the backing of several large corporations in the technology and finance sectors. 

Frontier is an advanced market commitment group representing some of the world’s largest tech and financial companies — including Stripe, Google, Shopify and Anthropic — in an effort to stimulate the carbon storage industry. 

The company is “actively evaluating Deep Sky for future offtake agreements and are encouraged by the pace of their technical progress,” according to a letter included in the Deep Sky package.

“However, to unlock this global market demand for Manitoba,” the company states, “two critical enablers are required: the allocation of hydroelectric power and a finalized regulatory framework.”

Bank of Montreal executive Grégoire Baillargeon, who serves as a board member for Carbon Removal Canada, wrote a similar letter of support urging the province to “grant the project a high-priority hydro allocation so that construction can begin and Manitoba can secure a leadership position in this emerging market.” 

Neither company responded to follow-up questions.

Any facility needing to draw more than five megawatts must submit a large power supply application, according to Manitoba Hydro (Deep Sky will need up to 15 megawatts of power in its first phase). In an email, media relations officer Peter Chura explained Hydro reviews applications thoroughly to determine feasibility, then forwards requests to the province for review and prioritization. 

Chura said Hydro could not confirm whether it had received a request for power from Deep Sky, as the Crown utility does not publicly discuss customers, applications or proposed developments. He confirmed Hydro has not received any directives from the Manitoba government regarding the Deep Sky proposal.

Julia-Simone Rutgers 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.

Summary

• Grade 7 students Veda Nair and Latavia Douglas discovered their school and community no longer had access to recycling services after Ontario shifted responsibility for blue box collection to a producer-run system.
• Although the First Nation is eligible to join Ontario’s Blue Box Program, it has not registered due to logistical concerns.
• Nair and Douglas continue to advocate for recycling in their community, arguing they should have the same opportunity to protect the environment as anyone else.

In September 2025, Veda Nair and Latavia Douglas set out to start a recycling program at their school.

The Grade 7 students attend Mamawmatawa Holistic Education Centre, locally known as MHEC, in Constance Lake First Nation, about 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, Ont. They planned to encourage their classmates to sort paper, plastic and other recyclables through a student-led initiative called Project Z.E.R.O.

Project Z.E.R.O. stands for “zero mistakes, engage everyone, recycle and one school, one goal,” Nair said. 

But the project quickly became complicated. 

“When we first started, we just hoped that this would be a little project where we would just buy some recycling bins and everyone would recycle, but it evolved into a lot more,” Nair said.

For one thing, they learned there were no longer recycling services available in Constance Lake — not for their school, or the roughly 200 homes in the community. Any recycling they collected and sorted had nowhere to go.

Up until 2023, Ontario municipalities were responsible for their own recycling programs. Then, the Ontario government decided to make a major change, shifting that responsibility over to Circular Materials, a not-for-profit organization run and funded by the major producers of recyclables, like plastic and cardboard.

Municipalities and First Nations have gradually transitioned over to the new program — but not all of them, at least not yet. Constance Lake’s recycling had been handled through an agreement with the nearby Town of Hearst, Ont., but now, like more than 100 other First Nations, it is lacking that service.

“We were unable to continue it because the Town of Hearst isn’t responsible for the recycling anymore,” Nair said. 

Constance Lake is located about 32 kilometres by road northwest of Hearst. After the First Nation’s landfill site was closed in 2018, a solid waste and waste diversion service agreement was signed and the town provided recycling services for the First Nation, which has about 900 members living on reserve. According to the agreement dated March 28, 2020, Hearst would accept the First Nation’s waste and recycling material at the municipal landfill site in exchange for a service fee.

But that changed a few years later, according to Éric Picard, the chief administrative officer for the Town of Hearst, to prepare for Ontario’s new recycling regime, the Blue Box Program. Lillian Sutherland, infrastructure and public works manager for Constance Lake First Nation, said the community has not received any recycling services since around 2022, when the provincial program was ramping up.

The First Nation’s waste is still handled by the town, but the recyclable materials are no longer accepted under the renewed agreement because blue box services are now administered by the province and producer-led organization.

That has left Nair and Douglas trying to figure out where their school’s recyclables could go.

Why doesn’t Constance Lake First Nation have a recycling program?  

Ontario’s Blue Box Program recycles printed paper and packaging, including plastics, paper, glass, aluminum and steel. It is regulated by the provincial government and managed by Circular Materials. Its recycling services are largely contracted out to GFL Environmental Inc.

The Doug Ford government finalized its Blue Box Regulation in June 2021 and began transitioning responsibility for residential recycling from municipalities and First Nations to Circular Materials. The new system officially launched in July 2023. Under the regulation, all participating communities were to be included in the new system by Dec. 31, 2025.

Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation defines an eligible community as a local municipality, local services board area or First Nations reserve south of the Far North region of Ontario — but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re participating.

Constance Lake, for example, is eligible for the program, according to a spokesperson for the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority, the regulator mandated by the Ontario government to enforce the province’s recycling law. But it hasn’t signed up — and it’s not alone.

As of Jan. 1, 2026, only 12 First Nations out of 102 residing south of the Far North border had transitioned over to the new program. 

Eligible First Nations must first register and submit information about their community and existing waste collection services. That information is then shared with Circular Materials. Once a First Nation is registered, Circular Materials is required to provide an offer of collection services or funding on behalf of the producers that finance the system.

Constance Lake First Nation Chief Richard Allen told The Narwhal the community did not apply to be a part of Ontario’s Blue Box Program due to logistical concerns — the cost of transportation to and from the community and concerns GFL would not service it because the reserve is on federal Crown land.

Part of the challenge facing Project Z.E.R.O. is that students and school staff have received conflicting information about why recycling services through GFL Environmental are unavailable in the community, and if it’s related to being on federal lands.

“We were a little panicked because, what would we do if the only company that was responsible for our recycling cannot help us with recycling?” Douglas said.

The Narwhal reached out to GFL Environmental Inc., but the company declined to comment, explaining that it is a contracted service provider, and referred questions to Circular Materials.

In an emailed statement to The Narwhal, Circular Materials wrote it is not currently engaged in any discussions about providing recycling service to Constance Lake First Nation and not in the position to comment on operations or any possible third-party private contract negotiations. It further wrote eligibility is determined by Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation.

“Circular Materials is committed to supporting First Nations communities with their needs and requirements around the blue box transition, in alignment with Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation,” Jennifer Kerr, a spokesperson for Circular Materials, wrote.

“Communities’ eligibility for participation in the Blue Box Program is determined by the Blue Box Regulation.”

‘It just seems a bit absurd’

Nair and Douglas began working on the project through their school’s enrichment program, a project-based learning class led by Cameron Straughan, who teaches science, technology, engineering and mathematics — or STEM.

Since learning about the lack of recycling service, the students have written letters to Kapuskasing-Timmins-Mushkegowuk MP Gaétan Malette, federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin and Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty, asking for advice and help.

“We recently did surveys at our school, and the results show that we have a lot of students and staff who are dedicated to recycling,” they wrote in the letter.

The students wrote that it “feels wrong” for paper and plastic to go into the garbage just because of where the community is located and that they have the support of their school to put a program in place, but need help to “find the right path.”

Nair said only Dabrusin’s office responded.

“And the funny thing is that they told us that they would transfer this to another person who is the Minister of Indigenous Services of Canada and we already sent them a letter,” she said.

Straughan said he was surprised by the limited response.

“I thought being students, a student-led project at a First Nation school, I thought that there’d be more response by far,” he said.

Indigenous Services Canada told The Narwhal the community has received $222,000 annually for their solid waste management needs since 2020-2021, which can cover recycling, garbage and compost.

The Narwhal reached out to Malette and Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, which oversees the blue box legislation, but did not receive a response before publication.

Mushkegowuk-James Bay MPP Guy Bourgouin declined to comment, but a spokesperson at his office said additional information is still being gathered and the situation continues to be reviewed.

Straughan said the situation is frustrating because Hearst is only about a 30-minute drive from Constance Lake First Nation. He knows because he lives there and drives to the school every weekday.

“It seems a bit absurd to me that [GFL] cannot send a recycling truck to pick up recycling for this community,” he said.

“And yet they do pick up garbage. They do have a garbage truck in Constance Lake. Garbage is delivered to the dump in Hearst, but not recycling.”

Straughan understands the issue is complicated, but believes the students have exposed a real problem.

“It just seems absurd that we’re tied by red tape, our hands are tied by red tape that we can’t get that recycling truck to deliver,” he said.

Straughan said he has been impressed by how Nair and Douglas handled the complexity of the recycling issue. And the school may still have a path forward. They’re currently looking into the First Nations Waste Management Initiative, a federal program that supports First Nations in developing sustainable waste management systems. Straughan expects to write a proposal over the summer. 

“We have some more work to do ahead of us before we can actually get the recycling program up and running,” he said.

Students want decision-makers to understand that recycling should be available to their school — and community, Nair said. “As an Indigenous school or as any school, students use a lot of paper every day, we should have the rights to recycle and save our environment.”

Rajpreet Sahota is a community and policy reporting fellow. Her position is generously funded by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. As per The Narwhal’s editorial independence policy, the foundation has no editorial input.

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

Summary

• A proposal by developer Cliff Bay Muskoka Corp. includes new condominium and hotel units, restaurants, a spa, an event centre and a marina in the small town of Gravenhurst, Ont., along with particularly controversial water villas over Lake Muskoka.
• The proposal relies on obtaining a Minister’s Zoning Order, or MZO, to bypass local municipal planning rules. 
• The MZO was a condition of the purchase when the developers bought it from the province, which one legal expert told The Narwhal could pose a conflict of interest.

Ontario cottage country — famous for its hundreds of clear lakes nestled in the Canadian Shield — is experiencing a first. 

The Cliff Bay resort project, proposed for the south end of Lake Muskoka, is planning for a Minister’s Zoning Order, a provincial decree that limits local government oversight in order to move development ahead. It’s known across the province as an MZO although, until now, Muskoka doesn’t appear to have experienced one. 

Now that it is, locals and cottagers have a lot to say. Throughout the town of Gravenhurst, Ont., lawn signs urge passersby to “Protect Muskoka Bay.” An attempt at an online public meeting initiated by the developers failed in May 2025, after its capacity of 100 attendees was quickly reached, with many more stuck in the waiting room eager to voice their concerns. 

The proposal by developer Cliff Bay Muskoka Corp., part of the KS Group of Companies, shows new condominium and hotel units, two restaurants, a spa, an event centre for weddings and a marina with space for 80 boats. While the developers originally proposed 1,400 units split between hotel and residential space, they told The Narwhal in an email that number has been “significantly reduced,” but didn’t say by how much.

All of this will spread across 33 hectares, or about the size of just under 50 soccer pitches.

A particularly controversial aspect of the Cliff Bay resort plan are additional water villas proposed to be built directly over the lake. Their construction would impact Crown lake-bed, which supports invertebrates and insects that are the backbone of the lake ecosystem.

“The building over water is what gets me the most,” Bruce Parlette, who spends half his time at his cottage on Lake Muskoka, told The Narwhal. Parlette began an online petition opposing the project that has accumulated more than 5,300 signatures over the last year.

By current municipal rules, buildings on the bay typically have to be at least 20 metres, in some cases 30, from the shoreline. “But they’re looking to build all these villas on the water … so the whole shoreline protection, that buffer zone, would be gone,” Parlette said.

So far, Gravenhurst’s leadership has been quiet on the project within its borders. A spokesperson told The Narwhal in an email that the town has not taken a position or issued any news releases or statements as “there hasn’t really been anything to share,” adding that they are awaiting the final proposal for “some form of statement or release.” 

When asked about public concerns over the impact of the project, the spokesperson said “the town does not own the property, process or decision here,” adding that council “certainly heard the concerns” at the developer’s public information session and might be able to take an eventual position when the process is further along.

The spokesperson did express council’s desire to see the property, a mix of undeveloped Crown land and a former sanatorium, put to productive use for the community. 

Meanwhile, Parlette and advocates at the Muskoka Lakes Association are selling the lawn signs, emailing officials and participating in public meetings about what the association calls the “deeply troubling details of a massive development proposal.”

“Nobody wants to see it done with an MZO, because then it’s going to override any local planning, zoning and decision-making,” Parlette said.

The developer website reads that, “in partnership with the Province of Ontario, we’re redeveloping this iconic site into a vibrant, mixed-use tourist complex,” in a project that reflects their “commitment to thoughtful growth, economic development and preserving the natural beauty of Muskoka for generations to come.”

The Narwhal also sent questions to Infrastructure Ontario, which sold the land to Cliff Bay, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Neither of the provincial agencies involved responded to detailed questions about the sale of the land, the Minister’s Zoning Order and public concerns about the impact of the project.

Muskoka’s first MZO and the Doug Ford government’s track record using them

A Minister’s Zoning Order is a powerful control tool. It lets the provincial Housing Minister unilaterally decide how land is used and developed by bypassing local municipal planning and public consultation processes that would otherwise be required under the Planning Act. 

After searching publicly available government records, The Narwhal was unable to find evidence of any other MZOs being issued in the Muskoka area, including in the three major towns of Gravenhurst, Bracebridge, Huntsville and smaller hubs like Bala and Port Carling. 

Phil Pothen, legal counsel and program manager of land use and Ontario environment at advocacy organization Environmental Defence, told The Narwhal the Muskoka proposal raises concerns because the developers stated publicly that obtaining a Minister’s Zoning Order was a condition of the purchase and sale agreement between Infrastructure Ontario and the developers.

“It would actually place the province in something of a conflict of interest,” Pothen said, “in the sense that [the province] is both the landowner who stands to gain more if the land is more highly valued and the regulator who’s actually making the decision.”

Discussion of the MZO came at a public information meeting held over Zoom in July 2025, a redo after the over-capacity attempt that May. There, Kirill Soloviev, head of strategic planning for Cliff Bay, told hundreds of attendees that, as part of the deal for the developer to buy the property from the province, a “Ministerial Zoning Order was included, and now it’s a formal part of the transaction.” Bob List, a land use and environmental planner acting as a consultant for the project, echoed the statement.

The Cliff Bay project’s developer wrote in an email to The Narwhal that a Minister’s Zoning Order was a “necessity” because mixed land use — mostly recreational and commercial — is currently not recognized in existing zoning for the property. Ensuring a Minister’s Zoning Order would come through was essential to the decision to purchase the land, as without it, the decision to rezone the property for the purposes of the resort would have been left with the township, and not guaranteed.

In 2024, the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario conducted an audit of Minister’s Zoning Orders in the province and found that between 2017 and 2023, 114 were issued. With the Doug Ford government first elected in 2018, that average of 23 per year represents a 17-fold increase from the prior two decades. The audit concluded that these orders “have been used to override municipal planning.”

The audit also found that most information packages prepared for the office of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as it evaluated each order “did not contain the kind of detailed risk information normally factored into municipal zoning decisions.” That included key information about the capacity of local roads, sewers and other infrastructure; the risks posed by natural hazards and the environment; and likely financial burdens to regions, municipalities and taxpayers.

These orders cannot be appealed at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Of the 25 Minister’s Zoning Orders the auditor general scrutinized for the report, they found that half showed “no evidence the ministry engaged with any affected Indigenous communities” prior to issuing the order. 

“This is a threat, frankly, to the rule of law in Ontario,” Pothen said. “It’s a process that is much more susceptible to impropriety than a conventional planning process where multiple individuals all need to be lined up in support of a proposal.”

What’s next for Cliff Bay resort in Ontario cottage country?

Right now, the area surrounding the site boasts a tree-lined shore spotted with cottages, ranging from quaint to luxurious. Docks surround the large, clear blue bay, with Muskoka chairs set up with views across the lake. Not far from the water on the site, the eerie, now-closed hospital building sits abandoned and overgrown.

Maintaining shorelines is critical to ecosystems and the wildlife they support; it’s where fish spawn, turtles lay eggs and birds nest. Healthy shoreline vegetation also filters rainwater and can even limit flooding, a risk that is increasing in the face of climate change.

In a response to questions from The Narwhal, the Cliff Bay developers said that upcoming changes to their plans will add more features for public use, like the beaches and public trails Soloviev mentioned during the public meetings, and address public comments they’ve received from people reaching out to them. 

In an email, they said no “significant or unusual environmental impacts are anticipated,” as sewage will be processed at an existing local treatment facility and because “there are no significant natural heritage features on the site.” The developers said they anticipate an updated draft of the Minister’s Zoning Order will be “available for further public review, Indigenous consultation and government processing in several months.”

Despite these efforts, Minister’s Zoning Orders do not come with any legally binding requirement to consult the public — a point project planner List repeated several times at the July 2025 Zoom meeting.

Pothen said the zoning orders provide a direct route for the minister to “leapfrog and circumvent the established planning laws of a municipality” and to approve a development even if it doesn’t conform with the official plan or with the government’s own provincial planning statement.

The Minister’s Zoning Order process does involve collecting comment from municipal governments. But, according to the auditor general’s report, there is no legislated requirement for the ministry to satisfy any municipal requests for specific conditions prior to the orders being issued. 

The Cliff Bay development will have to go through several environmental checks before being built — including a posting on the environmental registry of Ontario for public comment if the proposal goes through. 

There are cases where Minister’s Zoning Orders have been useful, Pothen told The Narwhal, such as during COVID-19 lockdowns, when they allowed for quick creation of emergency shelters.

“They are meant to be used, in our view, for very extreme and emergency circumstances,” Pothen said. “What’s being posed here, it’s really just a way to circumvent the rule, which raises the problem.”

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

Summary

• In early May, 49 birds were found in tailings ponds at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oilsands mine. Later in the month, 95 birds were found dead at the Suncor Firebag site.
• The Alberta government’s oilsands mine water steering committee made recommendations in 2025 to speed up creating standards for treating and releasing tailings, which are generated as a by-product of the oil extraction process.
• Treating and releasing tailings into rivers has been criticized by downstream First Nations, including Mikisew Cree First Nation.

At Jean L’Hommecourt’s cabin north of Fort McMurray, the birdsong is frequently interrupted by the hollow booming of a cannon, a stark reminder of the proximity of the oilsands in an otherwise tranquil setting of muskeg and boreal forest. 

L’Hommecourt got another reminder of her toxic neighbour last month. Announcements about oiled birds in tailings ponds have L’Hommecourt, who is from Fort McKay First Nation, and other community members thinking about the 1.4 billion cubic litres of tailings ponds upstream of their water supply and food sources in northern Alberta. 

The booming cannons heard from L’Hommecourt’s cabin are an attempt to scare away birds that might otherwise land on tailings ponds and perish — but they don’t always work. Fort McKay First Nation notified members that 49 birds were found in tailings ponds at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oilsands mine between May 1 and 8. “Detection and deterrent systems, including the use of drones for hazing, have remained active during this spring migration period,” the notice to members said. The Narwhal reached out to Imperial Oil to ask whether the birds were found deceased, or if any birds had been retrieved and rehabilitated, but the company did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

“It’s claiming the lives of our waterfowl. That is our traditional foods,” L’Hommecourt, who has been an advocate for clean drinking water, said.  

L’Hommecourt’s cabin is 13 kilometres away from the Kearl mine site and she no longer harvests plants or berries from the area. She is concerned about the effects of air pollution, though she and her husband will still harvest moose, as they live on a diet of traditional foods as much as possible. 

95 more birds found dead at Suncor site in May

Living downstream of tailings ponds has long been a concern for residents in and around Fort McKay, which is in the middle of much oilsands mining activity, as well as in Fort Chipewyan, a remote fly-in community accessible only by plane or winter road that is downstream of the oilsands. Fort Chipewyan has three Indigenous groups: Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, the Fort Chipewyan Métis and the Mikisew Cree.

On May 24, Mikisew Cree First Nation also notified members that birds were found dead at one of Suncor’s oilsands sites, known as the Suncor Firebag site. 

“After a thorough search of the area, a total of 95 birds have been found deceased in the north-east quadrant of the site, not near any bodies of water,” a spokesperson for Suncor said in a statement.

Birds land on tailings ponds to rest as they migrate. Lights from the work camps, changes in temperature and even a change in headwinds can mean the migrating birds need these pit stops.

When a bird lands in a tailings pond they can become coated with oil, which can reduce the waterproofing in their feathers and can cause them to sink. Birds that can get out of the tailings pond and have the oil removed may have reduced insulation and other negative effects that can lead to hypothermia even from small amounts of oil, according to a federal government report on annual bird mortality in the oilsands.

The Alberta Energy Regulator said it was conducting an inspection of the Firebag site for more information about the dead birds. 

A spokesperson for the regulator said by email that oilsands operators typically use a number of deterrents to stop birds or other wildlife from ending up in tailings ponds, including propane-fired cannons and loudspeakers, scarecrows, human effigies and kites shaped like hawks.

The Narwhal previously reported on an unreleased internal document from the Alberta Energy Regulator in 2021 that showed an “emphasis on the appearance of sophisticated bird protection over data that demonstrate it.”

L’Hommecourt said she is upset that even though there is ample time to plan new deterrents, communities are still receiving notifications about oiled birds and bird deaths. 

Suncor added in a statement that it has a monitoring and mitigation program to prevent its sites from harming wildlife. The cause of death for the birds is currently unknown. 

Bird deaths continue as Alberta plans a new treat-and-release approach to tailings

The announcements have spurred further concern about pollution issues downstream of the oilsands. Mikisew Cree First Nation Chief Billy-Joe Tuccaro went to Ottawa in November to call on the federal government to manage tailings ponds and other industrial waste in a way that protects nearby communities like Fort Chipewyan, where he said he doesn’t feel Indigenous sovereignty or community concerns about water are being taken seriously. 

“So, what they’re saying is that it’s safe. Well, if it’s so safe, build a pipeline, put it right by the [legislature] in Edmonton. The premier can drink it first, then send another pipeline to Calgary, then the Bow, they can drink it as well, those corporate people, and then build one, go to the east, and then Carney could drink it too,” he told The Narwhal. 

“And then they could be the science experiments, the subjects, because we’re tired of it.”

The Alberta government’s oilsands mine water steering committee made recommendations in 2025 to speed up creating standards for treating and releasing the water generated as a by-product of the oil extraction process.

The liquid is a mixture of residual bitumen, heavy metals, clay and sand. Studies show that the “oilsands process-affected water,” as it is called in industry, also contains a toxic slurry of naphthenic acids, volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These can cause health effects including narcosis (cell poisoning) and disrupt the endocrine system, which can cause issues with diabetes, fertility, thyroid malfunction and increased cancer risk.

Tuccaro said there have not been enough studies into the cumulative effects of oilsands mining. While the focus on water safety tends to be on drinking water from the taps, he added there is also an effect from consuming traditional foods such as berries and fish from the area. 

All three Indigenous communities in the Fort Chipewyan area — the Mikisew Cree, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Fort Chipewyan Métis — have expressed concerns about the Alberta government’s plans to treat and release tailings pond water. 

Tany Yao, the MLA for the area, did not respond to a media request about the birds in the tailings ponds nor about the Fort Chipewyan residents’ concerns about the plans to eventually treat and release tailings pond water.

Updated June 17, 2026, at 6:43 a.m. MT: Due to an editing error, a previous version of the summary at the top of this article stated all 49 birds found in tailings ponds at Imperial Oil’s Kearl oilsands mine had died. In fact, the company did not respond to questions about whether the birds were confirmed dead, as the article states. The summary also stated birds at the Suncor site were found dead in tailings ponds when the company said they were not found in water, as the article says.

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.

Federal Minister of Indigenous Services Mandy Gull-Masty has unveiled a new and long-awaited bill to provide safe drinking water to First Nations, which she says was written to ensure “we have provincial partners at the table.” Ontario chiefs say they were shut out and their right to clean water was not recognized. 

Gull-Masty denied her government caved to provincial pressure in Bill C-37, or An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, that sets out principles to provide safe drinking water and disposal of wastewater for First Nations.

“My conversations with leadership and the chiefs that have spoken to me understand that we are trying to pass a bill that is going to be protected and stand the test of time,” the minister said at a press conference on Parliament Hill on June 16.

“I’m not trying to put a bill forward that is going to be challenged,” she said. “I’m trying to put a bill forward that partners, provinces and territories feel can advance, that they can work with us.”

The Chiefs of Ontario, however, say First Nations were not consulted in the process. The group is “cautiously optimistic” but remains concerned about the approach to this issue by the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney.“Unlike previous legislative efforts, which were developed through meaningful dialogue and partnerships with First Nations Knowledge Keepers [and] technicians, Bill C-37 was introduced without broad or meaningful input from First Nations,” Linda Debassige, Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief, and a member of the Chiefs of Ontario leadership council, said in a Tuesday press conference in Rama, Ont. 

“Our letters of advocacy have been met with a deafening silence, to be honest. We do not have access to parliamentary privileged dialogue or cabinet discussions in relation to this.”

It’s been over a year since the Liberal Party promised in their election platform to “immediately introduce and pass legislation affirming that First Nations have a human right to clean drinking water.” In the last six months, two First Nations in northern Ontario have declared severely worsening water crises due to failed infrastructure; one of the communities, Kashechewan, remains entirely evacuated.

The bill released this week states that the quality of water on First Nations lands must at minimum meet either federal guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality and for wastewater, or the standards in place in the province or territory where the lands are located. It’s backed by $4.6 billion for First Nations communities to build, operate and maintain water and wastewater systems, according to the press release, which adds to the $9.4 billion committed to these projects over the past decade.

The minister will still have to come out with regulations for a “protection zone,” which the bill leaves undefined. The use of these zones would hand First Nations jurisdiction over water sources adjacent to their lands — that is, if the nation and the federal and provincial governments have all agreed on the rules in force. 

“We have to acknowledge that [water] is not stagnant, it moves around,” Gull-Masty said. “For water that is adjacent or flowing in and out, I think that the important part of the work that we’re undertaking is that partners and territories understand that they also have a role to play.”

In addition to defining “protection zones,” the bill empowers the minister to come out with regulations on a dozen different aspects of water services, including source water protections, training and certification, occupational health and safety, monitoring and inspections, emergency planning, permitting and more. The government can even design regulations to govern the disclosure of information.

But the bill doesn’t commit to the same kind of rights language that the Liberals promised in their platform. Instead, it declares that the government’s policy is to “further the progressive realization, for individuals on First Nation lands, of the human right to safe drinking water as protected by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.” That covenant is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations that came into force in the 1970s.

“To me, [this] is insane,” Debassige told reporters. “It’s been a progressive realization for many of our nations for decades.”

Debassige has been working on First Nations water issues for more than a decade and has been involved in negotiations over previous federal bills on the matter. She said that by excluding language like “in collaboration with First Nations” in Gull-Masty’s new legislation, the Carney government is “hiding from their obligations.” 

“We must remember that most of the drafters of Bill C-37 have never spent time in our community,” she said, citing the speedy passage of the federal Bill C-5 and the provincial Bill 5, both of which aim to “fast-track” infrastructure and mining approvals and construction. “And we’ve seen the pushback on the previous iteration of this bill. And now we see the results of that weakening of our inherent rights to pave way for economic development.” 

“I think it’s a deflection of responsibility, a fear of provinces, a fear of nation-building projects not coming through because our nations want to protect water.” 

The bill comes as tensions grow over these issues between the federal government, provincial governments and First Nations. 

Some chiefs, particularly in Treaty 8 territory, which spans northern B.C., Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, asked the federal government to rethink its approach. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation’s chief said the bill didn’t meaningfully incorporate inherent and Treaty Rights to water while Mikisew Cree First Nation’s chief said the bill didn’t do enough to deal with the potential release of oilsands wastewater into rivers.

Last July, the environment ministers from Ontario and Alberta asked the federal government to “refrain” from introducing a new First Nations water bill, claiming it would “undermine competitiveness, delay project development and disproportionately harm specific provinces and territories without any quantifiable benefits to the natural environment.” 

Ontario’s Environment Minister Todd McCarthy apologized for any “confusion” the request may have caused First Nations. But First Nations have not been convinced by the apology. The Ontario government has skirted meaningful consultation with First Nations in its push to open the Ring of Fire region in northern Ontario, with significant implications for water use and sources, and broadly speed up mining approvals and development. It has also signalled its own plans to make broad changes to provincial clean water rules.

As Canada and Ontario rush to expedite major projects, including in the mining sector, First Nations have long been asking for the same expediency to pass laws to protect drinking water before shovels hit the ground. With a few days left before MPs are scheduled to rise for the summer, this bill is unlikely to become law before the fall. 

“I wish one of Canada’s major projects were to provide us clean drinking water,” Knowledge Keeper Sally Gaikezheyongai said, as she offered a prayer to begin the Tuesday press conference by the Chiefs of Ontario. “I ask the Creator to make sure that happens hopefully within my lifetime.” 

Why does Canada need a law to protect access to clean drinking water on First Nations? 

Indigenous Services Canada reports that there are 36 Indigenous communities that have been under orders for more than a year to boil their drinking water for one minute. Most of these communities are in Ontario. The longest-standing boil water advisory is for Neskantaga First Nation in northern Ontario, just south of the Ring of Fire region. It hasn’t had clean drinking water since 1995. (The federal count is not comprehensive, as some jurisdictions, such as B.C., track their own boil-water advisories in Indigenous communities.)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to end all these boil-water advisories by March 31, 2021, but did not succeed. Post-colonization, and as stated in the Indian Act, the federal government has a fiduciary obligation to ensure safe, potable drinking water for First Nations. Instead, there is a regulatory black hole for and chronic underinvestment in on-reserve water and wastewater services.

A month before Trudeau’s deadline, a government audit found that Indigenous Services Canada “did not provide the support necessary to ensure that First Nations communities have ongoing access to safe drinking water,” thus prolonging boil water advisories. 

The impacts of these failures are severe, including preventable illnesses, costly reliance on bottled water and long-term evacuations. 

Kashechewan First Nation, a community of 2,000 residents, has been entirely evacuated since January due to a catastrophic sewage pump failure. There is still no access to safe drinking water on their reserve. 

In May, Pikangikum First Nation declared a second state of emergency, a year after the original declaration, due to collapsing water and wastewater systems. The community’s only water treatment plant is operating beyond capacity, even as more than 300 homes remain without direct water service. The community’s reservoir is also at critically low levels and is losing water at a rate roughly four times greater than it can be filled.As a result, the nearly 4,000 on-reserve residents are dealing with daily water rationing and forced evening shutdowns. As wildfire season looms, Pikangikum is now suing the federal government. 

“It’s so important that we take action as a country, as First Nations leadership, to ensure that there are no more Kashechewans, that there are no more Pikangikums,” Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, told reporters. 

“It’s unacceptable that this is a reality that many of our communities are being put in: to try to negotiate on big, major nation-building projects while they’re trying to make sure that their children and their youth can have access to water to drink.”

Why is the federal law to protect clean drinking water on First Nations so delayed?

There have been different iterations of this legislation, Kathleen Padulo, director of environment for the Chiefs of Ontario, told The Narwhal in a conversation before Bill C-37 was released, but none have proved durable.

Since the 1970s, the federal government has been promising to provide Indigenous communities with water and wastewater systems equal to those enjoyed by most Canadians, but no matter which party is in power, it has continuously fallen short of that goal. 

In 2013, the Stephen Harper government passed the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act. This law created a regulatory regime to govern water infrastructure on First Nations lands, but without any financial backing or centring Indigenous decision-making or rights. It also didn’t protect the sources of water flowing onto First Nation lands.

“It had no teeth, and it was really watered down,” Padulo said. “It was a piece of paper just floating around for years.” 

As a result, this law was met with widespread disapproval from First Nations. Several, including Neskantaga, launched a class action lawsuit in 2019, claiming “Canada has been negligent, breached its fiduciary duties, breached the honour of the Crown and breached various rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Ottawa settled that lawsuit in 2021, agreeing to provide $1.8 billion in compensation and spend $6 billion on water infrastructure over nine years. The federal government also promised to repeal and replace the Conservative law. 

That didn’t happen until 2023 when the Trudeau government introduced Bill C-61, or the First Nations Clean Drinking Water Act. The landmark bill involved First Nations in its creation, doing so over a two-year-long consultation and co-development process. This bill established clean drinking water as a human right, set minimum standards for drinking water and wastewater on reserves and pledged funding for water-related infrastructure. This bill also created an Indigenous-led First Nations Water Commission to help implement the law and monitor its impact. 

After weeks of consultation with First Nations, the bill did not pass before Parliament was prorogued in January 2025. Then-Indigenous services minister Patty Hajdu said the delay was the fault of opposition parties. 

Padulo said they’ve been waiting for this bill to re-emerge and be passed “with the speed of light like Bill C-5” and then put it in place in communities right away. 

“What is happening here is colonization at the end of the day, that’s what it is,” Padulo said. “And Canadians not understanding that not everybody has basic human rights.”

What happens next?

Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Debassige is asking the government to ensure “sufficient engagement” with First Nations as this bill goes through the parliamentary process, urging the government to move quickly from legislation to action. 

“We’re cautiously optimistic,” she said, but with the Liberals holding a majority government, “It’s going to be a difficult process.”

“Water is a human right. Full stop,” Debassige said. “We are looking to Canada to help us champion a shift from the outdated and colonial perspectives of First Nations being viewed as second-class citizens to ensuring our people can enjoy the same clean and safe drinking water guaranteed to non-First Nations across this country.” 

Gull-Masty said the government supports consultations with First Nations governing bodies to develop the many regulations that the bill authorizes. 

Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict told reporters that the government needs to focus on accountability to ensure First Nations communities have “confidence in the drinking water.”  

“We are calling on the federal government to move swiftly from legislation to action. The goal must not only be to eliminate advisories, but to prevent new ones from coming on,” he continued. “Legislation is only the beginning of ending these challenges.”

“Our communities have waited long enough.” 

Updated on June 16, 2026, at 8:40 p.m. ET: This story has been updated to include the amount of federal funding dedicated to building, maintaining and operating water and wastewater infrastructure in First Nations communities as part of Bill C-37.

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

Summary

• With demand for electricity rising fast, BC Hydro says it needs natural gas power plants to keep operating to ensure the province has enough power.
• Island Generation, a natural gas plant in Campbell River, B.C., was supposed to be decommissioned but BC Hydro is now seeking to renew its contract as the province needs the power. 
• Energy Minister Adrian Dix said Island Generation is facing supply issues due to the Squamish-based Woodfibre LNG project. As the project is not yet operational, Dix’s comments have confused and surprised some politicians and experts.

When a heat wave hits Vancouver Island, residents turn up their air conditioning, flick on fans or adjust their heat pumps. Demand for electricity spikes. That’s also true during cold snaps and long, dark winter nights when more electricity is needed to keep homes lit and warm.

It’s on those days of extreme electricity demand that a Campbell River power plant fuelled by natural gas is most likely to fire up. Island Generation, owned by Capital Power, is one of a handful of facilities in B.C. that use natural gas to produce electricity. It’s what is known as a peaker plant, mostly called on to generate power at times of peak demand.

With a capacity of 275 megawatts, Island Generation can create enough electricity to power about 125,000 homes. It accounts for about one-quarter of all the electricity that can be produced on Vancouver Island. Only about 40 per cent of the electricity used on the island is generated locally. The rest comes from the mainland, transmitted via cables laid across the bed of the Salish Sea.

Over the past five years, Island Generation has operated an average of 15 days per year, according to Adrian Dix, B.C.’s minister of energy and climate solutions.

But, the facility has been having trouble getting the gas it needs to generate electricity at critical times, Dix told members of the B.C. Conservative caucus on April 23. He said the supposed natural gas supply issue is connected to liquefied natural gas (LNG) production. 

“The reason why the supply of gas is affected is that gas is going to a project called Woodfibre LNG in Squamish. That has been the issue between ourselves and Capital Power,” he said. 

Dix’s statement surprised and puzzled the politicians and experts The Narwhal spoke to. Woodfibre LNG is still under construction until at least next year. Until then, there’s no obvious reason the Squamish facility would be using gas that would otherwise go to Island Generation. 

But questions to the Energy Ministry, Island Generation and Woodfibre LNG mostly went unanswered. None provided information needed to clarify the situation with Island Generation’s gas supply.

“Woodfibre LNG will be purchasing gas in the future once the facility is operational,” a spokesperson for the facility said in response to multiple emails and questions, an answer that does not directly address whether the facility is currently buying natural gas, as the minister implied.

The Energy Ministry did not respond to The Narwhal’s request for an interview with Dix or to specific questions about the ministry’s knowledge about Island Generation’s gas supply or its efforts to ensure the facility will be able to get the gas it needs to operate.

Green Party MLA Jeremy Valeriote, who represents the Vancouver-Sea to Sky riding where Woodfibre LNG is located, told The Narwhal he has not been able to clarify Dix’s comments.

“I’m just flagging for the public that it’s been hard for either of us to get any public information on this,” Valeriote said.

‘Where would that extra energy come from?’

BC Hydro’s contract with Capital Power was set to end in October 2026, but it recently applied to the BC Utilities Commission for a new agreement. The application mentions both Island Generation and the McMahon Cogeneration facility in Taylor, B.C., near the heart of the province’s oil and gas industry. The two gas-fired plants could help BC Hydro meet about 80 per cent of a 500-megawatt electricity shortfall it forecasts will materialize by 2030.

Demand for electricity has been rising rapidly in B.C., driven partly by large industrial customers such as LNG terminals and mining operations. BC Hydro has been under pressure to find efficiencies in its system and bring on new generating capacity with an emphasis on renewable sources such as wind and solar.

Meanwhile, the provincial government has been working to usher in an LNG boom, which could put pressure on the electrical grid and increase competition for natural gas.

Valeriote noted BC Hydro is supposed to be phasing out fossil fuel electricity generation, not seeking new contracts with gas-fired plants.

“It’s pretty concerning when we talk about firing up what should have been a decommissioned gas plant on the island that may not even have gas … in those critical, peak times,” he said.

BC Hydro’s submission to the utilities commission argues the Clean Energy Act, which requires it to generate and purchase enough energy to meet demand, trumps the regulations regarding phasing out fossil fuels. 

B.C. Conservative MLA Larry Neufeld wants to know what would happen if Island Generation were unable to operate during a demand peak.

“Where would that extra energy come from?” Neufeld, who serves as his party’s critic for oil, gas and LNG, said. 

“Would that be siphoned off of the Lower Mainland? Would it be imported? Those are excellent questions that the minister would be responsible to answer.”

B.C.’s LNG push and electricity demand

By 2030, there could be three LNG facilities operating in B.C. and a huge increase in demand for natural gas. In May, the Canadian government celebrated an agreement that could see one of them, Ksi Lisims LNG, sell one million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per year to Germany, starting sometime in the 2030s.

Another is LNG Canada, located on B.C.’s coast, the first large-scale LNG export facility in the country. 

It is already using up a huge amount of gas to operate: last year, LNG Canada received more than 3.6 billion cubic metres of natural gas. Nearly 10 per cent of what it burned off was because of an issue with one of the flare stacks, as The Narwhal previously reported.

And, it might eventually use much more. Earlier this month, B.C. Premier David Eby, federal Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson and LNG Canada CEO Chris Cooper held a press conference about a potential second phase of the project.

The newsiness of this announcement — trumpeting another small step toward a final commitment to proceed — was so thin one reporter asked why a press conference had been called at all. But Phase 2 could make a big difference to the province’s energy supply, as LNG Canada’s demand for natural gas could double as its production capacity rises to 28 million tonnes of LNG per year.

Woodfibre LNG will have a much smaller production capacity. It is expected to produce 2.1 million tonnes of LNG per year and will need about 7.7 million cubic metres of natural gas to do so. That gas will be supplied via a new pipeline branch off the Eagle Mountain pipeline, which currently supplies Vancouver Island, including the Island Generation station.

FortisBC is in the process of building that new section of Eagle Mountain as well as upgrading the section of the pipeline that leads into Squamish. A spokesperson for the company said in a statement that Fortis “regularly assesses system capacity and plans for growth and changing regional needs.”

“FortisBC can meet the needs of existing customers on Vancouver Island and we are continuing to deliver natural gas service in line with our contractual agreements,” the spokesperson said.

The Narwhal also asked Capital Power for an interview to discuss the minister’s comments. In response, a company spokesperson sent a two-sentence statement.

“Capital Power and BC Hydro are engaged in discussions around the future of the Island Generation facility in Campbell River,” the statement said. “Our focus is always to ensure we support the reliable, safe delivery of the power needs of British Columbians.”

A follow-up email with the same questions The Narwhal sent to the Energy Ministry went unanswered.

Conservative MLA Neufeld said British Columbians should not have to worry about a shortage of natural gas, even with a large increase in demand.

“Having spent over 30 years in the industry in northeast British Columbia, I will state that it is my opinion that that is a non-issue,” Neufeld told The Narwhal.

“There is far more than enough natural gas in the ground … we don’t have to be concerned about a supply crunch. Whether that is taken advantage of properly by government and by regulation is another question for the minister.”

But as British Columbians brace for a summer of heat waves and rising electricity demands, the province’s ability to keep power flowing becomes an increasingly important question.

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 government under Prime Minister Mark Carney has “repealed or weakened virtually every climate policy and regulation that Canada had developed in the last decade,” a former member of Canada’s Net-Zero Advisory Body told MPs.
• Two former members of the body said last week they were left uninformed of new policy directions on fossil fuel development and emissions reductions while their previous advice was ignored.
• Canada’s goal of reaching net-zero emissions — and helping to slow the effects of climate change — by 2050 is now “out of reach,” they said.

The consequences of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s methodical cuts to Canada’s environmental rules are not being communicated honestly to the public, two former government advisors say. 

Climate scientist Simon Donner and environmental advocate Catherine Abreu are both former members of a legislated advisory body of climate scientists and policy experts. Last week, they shared their experience on that body with MPs, saying Carney’s government repeatedly kept them in the dark while it gutted one rule after another — from scrapping the consumer carbon price to setting aside clean electricity rules, ditching the oil and gas emissions cap, pausing electric vehicle mandates and signing a deal with Alberta that delayed rules for methane gas leakage and weakened requirements for industry to pay for its carbon emissions.

The government refused offers to hear their advice and cancelled a high-level meeting at the last minute, Donner, the former co-chair of the Net-Zero Advisory Body and a University of British Columbia professor who runs a Climate and Coastal Ecosystem Laboratory, told the House of Commons environment committee on June 9. 

Donner and Abreu, the former executive director of Climate Action Network Canada and now the executive director of the International Climate Politics Hub, were there to brief MPs from multiple parties on the state of the advisory body.

“We were not informed of policy decisions underway, nor asked to provide advice on those decisions,” Donner said about the government’s myriad changes while he was co-chair.

That included their assessment that the Carney government’s actions were trashing any chance of Canada reaching its goal of negating its planet-heating carbon pollution, which would slow its contribution to the climate crisis that is wreaking havoc on Canadians’ health. That judgment has since been echoed by the Canadian Climate Institute.

Abreu also felt Carney’s enthusiastic support for the oil and gas industry is being downplayed. The industry is the economic sector with the highest amount of emissions and despite Canada’s climate commitments, those emissions are climbing ever higher, offsetting declines in other economic sectors. 

“The shredding of environmental policy that this government has undertaken means that Canada is now on track to violate its own law and to fail to attain net-zero emissions by 2050,” Abreu said.

Carbon pollution worsens climate change, which is fuelling floods and wildfires that can lead to evacuations, toxic smoke and heat waves that smother cities and trigger asthma and mental health issues. Fumes and exhaust from fossil fuel-powered vehicles, power plants and gas appliances are connected with heart disease, strokes, chronic lung diseases, cancer and tens of thousands of premature deaths a year.

Abreu said the government didn’t consult the advisory body before releasing its Climate Competitiveness Strategy, which focused on protecting the global competitiveness of Canada’s oil and gas sector. That strategy “unwound much of the policies that we had advised on in previous years,” Abreu said.

And, she said, because the government designed that document to be a “strategy” and not a formal “plan,” it sidestepped a legal requirement to consider submissions from the advisory body on the plan’s merits.

Canadian oil producers are expected to make as much as $100 billion in profits this year as a result of the Iran war, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The government is not contemplating a windfall tax on those profits, Abreu noted, which would require companies to hand over a portion of that excess profit to public coffers. Instead, the government is moving to further subsidize the industry. 

This spring, Carney formalized a tax credit for companies that use technology to capture carbon dioxide for the purposes of pumping more oil out of the ground. Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault, who announced he would resign his seat last month over the government’s policies, initially quit cabinet in part over the government’s plan to offer this new subsidy.

“Transparently communicating to Canadians, ‘This is a decision we’re making, here’s why and here are the protections that you’re going to lose as a result,’ is critical, and we’re not having that kind of open conversation,” Abreu told the MPs.

“Instead, things are being obfuscated with misleading language, including claims that we will continue to meet our net-zero goal, when clearly that has been put out of reach with recent decisions, and with misleading language like ‘decarbonized’ oil and gas, which is something that I hear this government say regularly, and is actually just a complete contradiction in terms.”

Environment and Climate Change Minister Julie Dabrusin’s spokesperson Keean Nembhard said the Climate Competitiveness Strategy contained measures to drive down emissions, including methane rules, carbon pricing, tax credits, critical minerals support and efforts to mobilize capital for the low-carbon transition. He said the government’s nature, electricity, and auto strategies are also meant to help cut carbon pollution.

“Our government has been clear that fighting climate change, protecting communities and building Canada are top priorities. Climate change is one of the defining challenges of our time and Canadians expect us to meet this challenge head-on,” he said.

The Narwhal also reached out to the prime minister’s office for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

Government ignored research, cancelled meetings with experts

The Net-Zero Advisory Body is authorized to include up to 15 people, but dropped to just six members last summer following Carney’s election, Donner said.

“It became very difficult for us to produce any work of value,” he said. 

The advisory body’s website currently lists five members. In April, Minister Dabrusin issued a statement that the government would be “implementing a series of updates” to the advisory body, as a result of “last year’s departures” as well as a “shift in focus” to “investment and growth in a low-carbon economy.”

The June briefing on the Net-Zero Advisory Body was the first that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has held. The committee’s job is to study and report on matters relating to a range of different environmental departments, agencies and laws, and has recently examined things like single-use plastics, carbon pricing and fresh water.

It’s one of several parliamentary committees in the House of Commons and Senate and is made up of MPs from parties with official status, which is based on the number of seats they hold. Although the Green Party and NDP aren’t committee members, Conservative MPs offered time for those parties’ questions. 

The former advisory body members gave opening statements and then answered questions for roughly an hour. Their testimony focused on the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, a federal law passed in 2021, which mandates that Canada reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The law requires the government to set increasingly stringent targets for lowering emissions and publish its plans to achieve them.

The law also establishes the Net-Zero Advisory Body of which Donner and Abreu were formerly members. It’s a kind of government climate council that provides independent advice to the environment minister on how to achieve net-zero emissions. The United Kingdom, South Korea and Australia have similar legislated climate councils. 

Under Canada’s law, the government is required to take into account “submissions provided by the advisory body” when coming up with an emissions reduction plan.

Abreu and Donner both joined the advisory body in 2021, but resigned last December after becoming frustrated with the cold shoulder they said they were receiving from Carney’s government. 

Last summer, the advisory board volunteered to brief the government on industrial carbon pricing and equivalency agreements with the provinces, Donner said, but he received “no response” from Carney’s office, and an acknowledgement but no appointment from Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson’s office.

The last straw was when the government proposed a deal with Alberta that weakens industrial carbon pricing, delays restrictions on industrial methane gas and significantly lowers the ambition of a carbon capture proposal from industry, while paving the way for a million-barrel-per-day oil pipeline to the west coast. 

Donner said the environment minister’s office cancelled a briefing with the advisory body scheduled for the day after the Canada-Alberta Memorandum of Understanding was released in November. 

After that, he said, he concluded the group’s work “had become performative.”

“You can’t be saying these deals are still compatible with net-zero by 2050. They’re not. The [Alberta] deal is not compatible with it,” he said.

“Just be honest with Canadians about this. If you’re going to pass deals like this, be honest about the implications.”

‘The oldest, most boring conversation I can possibly imagine’ about pipelines

Abreu told MPs the government has “repealed or weakened virtually every climate policy and regulation that Canada had developed in the last decade,” but with “no alternative policies or pathways being put in place.” 

She argued Carney’s killing of the consumer carbon tax on his first day in office was a decision based on “irresponsible and inaccurate rhetorical politics.” 

The prime minister’s decision to ditch the proposed oil and gas emissions cap opens the door for the government to help build projects, she argued, which will grow the sector’s emissions. 

And delaying the zero-emissions vehicle mandates has coincided with a drop in sales of new electric vehicles, she pointed out, “right at the moment when soaring gas prices are hurting Canadians who are struggling to fuel their gas guzzlers.”

The government’s proposal this spring to overhaul fossil fuel and nuclear project oversight, habitat preservation and species at risk protection and create “federal economic zones” where certain developments can be “pre-approved,” also undermines some of Canada’s longest-standing environmental protections, Abreu said.

She also called out Carney’s “national electricity strategy,” which sets aside clean electricity regulations and allows for new gas-fuelled power plants — which “makes a mockery of the abundant clean energy resources that should be a very celebrated economic advantage in this country.”

Instead, the country is stuck once again “having the oldest, most boring conversation I can possibly imagine, about how we’re going to build another pipeline,” she said.

“We’ve been having the same conversation the entire time that I’ve been in my professional career. It’s sad.”

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

The Sayisi Dene First Nation has purchased one of the largest hunting and fishing lodges in Manitoba’s Seal River Watershed, marking a return to the community’s traditional lands and an economic development opportunity for the northern nation. 

The Lodge at Little Duck sits nestled between Neganilini and Little Duck lakes, more than 1,000 kilometres north of Winnipeg. It is located in the Seal River Watershed, a 50,000-square-kilometre subarctic ecosystem relatively untouched by industrial development, and centred on the last major river in Manitoba without a hydroelectric dam. A network of provincial and federal parks has been proposed to protect the region. 

“The Sayisi Dene people have a real connection to the lands, especially around where the lodge sits,” Chief Kelly-Ann Thom-Duck said in an interview. “We have plans to use the area and see where it goes.” 

The fly-in only hunting, fishing and eco-tourism destination has its own airstrip, lounge and cabins. According to manager Shawn Paul, it regularly sees more than 100 guests every summer and fall for its guided caribou hunts and fishing trips.

After more than 40 years of operation under several ownership groups — most recently a shareholder group that included Winnipeg-based business scion James Richardson — the lodge was sold to the Sayisi Dene First Nation this spring. 

“It’s an amazing, full-circle event,” Paul said in an interview. “With the Sayisi Dene and their history at Little Duck Lake … and having the opportunity now to essentially own what was rightfully theirs — I think it’s spectacular.” 

The Sayisi Dene community was forcibly relocated in the 1950s

Thom-Duck said hunting and fishing trips will continue under the nation’s ownership, along with paddling expeditions and other eco-tourism experiences. But the Sayisi Dene also see an opportunity to use the lodge — and 18 square kilometres of nearby reserve lands formally transferred in 2024 — to help members reconnect to their roots.

The Sayisi Dene were historically nomadic, she explained, and spent summers living along the lake as they followed the Qamanirjuaq caribou herd. In 1956, the community was forcibly relocated to Churchill, Man., more than 200 kilometres away. 

The relocation was devastating; many of the impacts, Thom-Duck said, are still felt today.

When news of the lodge acquisition was announced in early May to a crowd of members that included several Elders who had experienced the relocation, Thom-Duck said the reaction was powerful. 

“There was just an outcry of joy, people were banging on tables and cheering, some people were crying,” she said. 

Community voices will be key to deciding the future of the lodge and nearby reserve lands, Thom-Duck said. While nothing will be formalized until consultations have taken place, she acknowledged there has been “a real outcry for our people to find treatment centres or healing land-based activities that could help them reconnect to identity.” 

Her vision is to see the lodge and nearby lands used both for the hunting, fishing and eco-tourism trips, and as a healing space for members. She would also like to see the lodge incorporate Dene laws and traditions so visitors can learn about the community’s culture and values. 

“That was a major driving point for the leadership here: going back to our homelands is a good opportunity for our local members to start that journey. At the same time, it operates as a hunting and fishing lodge, so there’s also opportunity for economic development,” Thom-Duck said.

The Seal River Watershed could be permanently protected under new proposal

The ownership transfer comes as the Sayisi Dene, Northlands Denesuline and Barren Lands First Nations, as well as the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation — united under the banner of the Seal River Watershed Alliance — are taking steps to establish the watershed as a protected area. 

As of this spring, the Manitoba government, federal government and governments of the allied First Nations have proposed a mosaic of federal and provincial parks that would permanently protect the watershed from industrial development while creating opportunities for tourism, job creation and Indigenous-led stewardship. 

For now, Paul said, it’s business as usual at The Lodge at Little Duck. He and his wife will be headed north to open the fishing lodge in the coming days.

“We’re excited about moving forward together with the new ownership, really looking forward to it,” he said. 

Julia-Simone Rutgers 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.

Summary

• The North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit officially stopped testing water at public beaches.
• In place of testing, the health unit is updating public signage to warn swimmers of risks of heavy rainfall, murky water and large numbers of birds congregating — things that deteriorate water quality.
• Researchers and advocates argue beach water monitoring is important, especially as climate change makes cooling off in the water more necessary — and more hazardous, thanks to algal blooms and pathogens.

Kevin Marois wasn’t aware that the health unit spanning North Bay and Parry Sound, Ont., had stopped testing the water at local swimming spots.“I don’t think it’s a good decision,” Marois told The Narwhal after learning about it on a hot June day at Shabogesic Beach in North Bay. “Not having the information on water quality is the main [concern],” he said as he came out of the water, “And we know that there are problems with water quality during the summer.”

There were six harmful algal bloom events in the health unit’s area in 2025, and more than a dozen in 2024.

After announcing its plans earlier this year, the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit has officially stopped testing water at public beaches as of this summer. 

In its place, they’re offering public signage, which the health unit says will warn beachgoers to assess risks from recent heavy rainfall, visibly murky water or large numbers of birds in the water — all things that alter water quality and can make swimming unsafe due to high levels of E. coli or harmful algae.

Despite the updated signage, those who study beach water safety in Canada say ceasing testing could impact people’s ability to make informed decisions about safe swimming this summer. 

Meanwhile, researchers have argued a warming climate in Canada, including more severe summer heat waves, means swimmable water for people to cool off in is more important than ever. 

“We see changing climate patterns, we see urban heat island effects, we see heat domes, we see that there’s a tremendous need for community cooling spaces,” said Gregary Ford, vice-president and Lake Ontario Waterkeeper at Swim Drink Fish, an environmental non-profit that advocates for safe, usable water bodies. Its name comes from signs often posted on shorelines in Canada: no swimming, no fishing and no drinking. 

Ford explained that warmer temperatures and extreme weather events — a part of climate change, which is primarily driven by the burning of fossil fuels — also contribute to more harmful algal blooms and other pathogens that affect the health of the water and people who use it.

Health unit says water testing is resource-intensive and too slow

In March 2026, the North Bay health unit, which also covers Kearney, Nipissing and South River, sent a letter to member municipalities saying sampling the area’s 60 public beaches was too resource-intensive, and lab results took three or four days, limiting their usefulness when water conditions change quickly. The health unit also argued that the risk of illness from water recreation in the region is low. The water was only tested about three times each summer, it said.

Last year, Public Health Sudbury and Districts, a region which includes Manitoulin Island and French River, ended routine water sampling as well — one of many cuts made after the medical officer of health said their funding has not kept pace with inflation.

“Obviously, there are growing pressures on municipalities and public health units … and so we understand that compromises have to be made, but not in something that affects public health,” Ford said. “This is a trend that we see during periods of economic stress and strain … Unfortunately, as these scalebacks start happening, the public is left with less information about their water and, honestly, that becomes the most important part.”

Swim Drink Fish aggregates data from across swimming spots in North America into an app called Swim Guide. But these helpful third-party tools rely on local data collected by public health departments.

“It’s really important that municipalities also provide historical data, even if they’re not sampling today. They should at least publicly make available the data and information that has been collected over the last five years, the last 10 years, so people can still make a somewhat informed decision about where they spend their time,” Ford said. That’s not something made available by the North Bay Parry Sound Health Unit, either.

There are options for protecting beachgoers, but they can’t replace testing: experts

A recent study from Toronto Metropolitan University, which surveyed 4,085 beachgoers at seven beaches in Canada between 2023 and 2025, found that about 2.6 per cent of swimmers reported becoming sick, with children and elderly people facing higher risk of “recreational water illness,” such as stomach issues, ear and eye infections or rashes.

Ian Young, principal investigator on the Canadian Beach Cohort Study, tracking recreational water illness across Canada, said despite that low risk, “having a solid monitoring plan is important to give people confidence in the beach.”

He pointed to other methods being used across the country to help combat the slow, unreliable nature of current testing. For example, at Bluffer’s Park Beach in Scarborough, Ont., the City of Toronto implemented a bird management program, involving removing sources of food and training dogs to spur geese into flight, once they realized a substantial amount of the E. coli in the water at the beach was caused by birds.

Ford, from Swim Drink Fish, has seen other solutions; municipalities like Kingston and Hamilton are trying out new technology that alerts citizens in real-time when sewers and sewer bypasses are overflowing and contaminating beach water. But, he said, this does not replace the need for monitoring.

“It is a far second in terms of a solution. The best solution is to be continuing and continuously monitoring these beaches,” Ford said. “Resources can be stretched thin at times. This is a public health interest, it is a tourism interest and it is an individual health and wellness interest as well. So, this should be a priority for public health units, and it’s disappointing to see some of these decisions that are being made.”

To help mitigate risk, North Bay’s health unit recommends swimmers wash or sanitize hands before eating after swimming, towel off well to help prevent swimmer’s itch, check for hazards before entering the water and avoid getting water in their mouths.

But North Bay resident Ashley Brooker, standing at the shore of Lake Nipissing, said she still doesn’t feel good about the testing changes. “I am a risk-taker, but that doesn’t mean that I want to risk getting sick or catching something,” she said. “Safety is a big thing, and if we’re putting our tax money into something then we should be getting the resources back.”

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

Summary

• B.C. is preparing to overhaul its natural gas royalty system, which determines how much revenue the government earns from the industry, by 2027.
• The government is promising a better return for taxpayers while industry warns higher rates could drive investment to Alberta.
• The debate comes as some advocates argue B.C. should collect more from gas companies who are using public lands for profit.

As B.C. readies to change what it charges fossil fuel companies extracting natural gas from public lands, industry supporters are pushing back.

B.C. has been eyeing changes to its natural gas royalty structure since 2021 when an independent assessment found the existing system needed a complete overhaul. The old system was “contributing to or possibly overcompensating” for the costs of developing oil and gas in B.C., the assessment concluded, which hugely reduced royalties returned to the public.

Details on how the new framework will increase royalties have yet to be released.

According to BC Conservative Labour critic Kiel Giddens, it risks “chasing away investment potential.” He raised the issue in the legislature on the final day of the spring sitting, saying if B.C.’s new royalties are too high, gas producers could move their operations to Alberta.

“There is a real risk that we could actually lose revenue if we’re not competitive,” Giddens told reporters.

Green Party MLA Jeremy Valeriote had a different take. 

“If Alberta wants to sell off their public resources for a song, then we should let them,” he told reporters at the legislature. “We should be standing up for competitiveness in terms of getting the most out of our resources.”

Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix is confident the new royalty system will strike a better balance for both the industry and British Columbians.

“To ensure a fair return … but also a situation where the industry can prosper and invest — those are my two goals in the process,” Dix said.

The new royalty system is emerging alongside B.C.’s burgeoning liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. LNG Canada, the first production facility to begin operating in B.C., began shipping its product to Asian markets last year — although the facility has experienced equipment issues that have reduced its production capacity. The B.C. and Canadian governments are eagerly anticipating a final investment decision on Phase 2 of the facility, which will double its capacity to 14 million tonnes of LNG per year.

Meanwhile, three other B.C.-based LNG projects are moving toward being operational before 2030. Together, these LNG production facilities will create a significant boom in gas demand, one the industry is keen to capitalize on.

On April 9, Dix sent a letter to industry stakeholders, as originally reported by DOB Energy. The letter, obtained by The Narwhal after Dix’s ministry refused to provide a copy, acknowledged the feedback included several key themes, such as “the need for reliable B.C. gas supply to underpin existing and future LNG projects.”

Dix also emphasized the government’s commitment to “the growth of LNG as a cornerstone of B.C.’s economic strategy.” 

“A strong, investable upstream sector is essential to realizing this opportunity,” he wrote.

How much revenue does B.C. earn from royalties? Probably less than you think

The new royalty system is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, following years of consultations with the industry and First Nations, as well as members of the public.

Royalties are supposed to give British Columbians a share of the profits that private companies earn by pumping oil and gas from public lands. B.C.’s previous royalty regime was criticized on that front because it offered companies a generous suite of credits that could reduce their royalty payments.

In 2022, B.C. announced the end of several of those credits, including the deep well credit, which former Premier John Horgan described as “the largest fossil-fuel subsidy in British Columbia.” 

At that point, the province had given away more than $7 billion in credits to oil and gas producers, with $3.75 billion of those still on the books. Companies are able to use those credits to reduce the royalties they would otherwise pay; money that would have gone into the provincial budget to fund other initiatives. (As of last month, companies had yet to claim about $600 million in credits, according to Dix.)The billions in credits contrast with the revenue B.C. actually collects from natural gas producers. Budget documents show B.C. has collected $5 billion in royalty revenue from gas producers since 2019, nearly half of that in 2022. This year, the province expects to collect $942 million in royalty revenue — less than it projects the BC Lottery Corporation will earn. Next year, royalty revenue is expected to hit $1.6 billion, driven by higher natural gas production.

“I think the dirty little secret of oil and gas is that they don’t contribute a ton in taxes,” Sven Biggs, Stand.earth’s Canadian oil and gas programs director, said. “There is not tons of economic activity actually connected to this [industry].”

The majority of B.C.’s oil and gas operations are concentrated in the northeast, where agricultural fields are criss-crossed by pipelines and studded with well pads. Oil and gas is a way of life for many Peace Region residents but it also comes with downsides. Fracking operations use huge amounts of water to extract gas from the ground, a process that can also leak gas and chemicals into the air and water. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has called for the B.C. and federal governments to fund a health impact assessment of the LNG sector to assess links between the industry’s activities and “asthma, heart disease, birth defects, childhood leukemia, neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases like autism and Alzheimer’s.”

Beyond royalties, Biggs argues B.C. should also be seeking to recoup the cost of the industry’s environmental and potential health impacts.

“All of those costs get passed on to us if they are not paying,” he said. “Technically this gas belongs to British Columbia — it’s a Crown resource and we are licensing it to these extraction companies.”

Complaints about competitiveness ‘a smokescreen,’ advocate says

The new system the province is proposing would take into account the money companies invest in their B.C. operations, as well as the money those operations make, called a revenue minus cost system. This approach is “globally recognized for maximizing economic values,” according to a B.C. government website.

Adopting a revenue minus cost system would bring B.C. into alignment with other gas-producing places, including Alberta, notes Werner Antweiler, an economics professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.

When the province began reviewing the royalty regime, the plan was to capture “50 per cent of profits after production costs are accounted for” — a pretty standard split in other jurisdictions, according to Antweiler.

“When you calculate revenue minus cost, revenue is pretty simple [because] you can see what the market pays,” Antweiler said. “The cost, that’s a different thing. … Anything that’s increasing costs will reduce profits and will lower the royalty. So one of the key questions that I have is to what extent are we calculating costs the same way as other jurisdictions?”

Depending on how costs are calculated, companies may pay only 30 or 40 per cent of their profits to governments in royalties, Antweiler said.

As for BC Conservative Labour critic Giddens’ warning about companies moving to Alberta, Biggs said those warnings are “a smoke screen from the industry.” He noted gas companies have been investing in B.C. for years — a trend partly sparked when Alberta implemented a new royalty regime in 2016.

“I don’t see a way that they can walk away from those at this point,” he said. “It would be a huge write-down. Alberta could produce more gas — hypothetically, but not really enough to meet the kind of demand we’re talking about.”

However, Biggs worries that governments remain susceptible to threats that an entire industry will “pack up and leave town and blame the administration for the lack of investment.”

“It works very well on them every time,” he said.

Years ago, when B.C. was working to lure gas companies to set up shop in the province, offering competitive royalty rates was a key advantage, Antweiler said.

“As the industry has matured, there’s really no reason to continue treating them better than their peers in Alberta.”

‘No decision has been made yet’ on B.C.’s new natural gas royalty regime

Industry priorities have already prompted the government to back down on a couple of proposed royalty scenarios, as Dix’s April letter shows.

“The province will not be advancing the Transition-Plus or Enhanced Return royalty curve scenarios further,” Dix wrote in the letter. “We acknowledge the concerns raised about the magnitude of change associated with those scenarios and the uncertainty they could introduce at this stage. Any further scenarios will consider your feedback as we work to align with the objectives of the new royalty framework.”

The Energy Ministry did not respond to The Narwhal’s questions about the letter, including a request for a description of the Transition-Plus and Enhanced Return scenarios.

Antweiler noted the two scenarios are similar to interim royalty rates outlined in 2022 under which companies pay higher royalties when gas prices are high and lower rates kick in when prices drop. The revenue minus cost system is simpler, he said, and could still give B.C. a good rate of return, depending on how it is designed

“It makes sense to me to move away from just an update of the existing system and to something that’s really robust and economically cohesive,” he said. “That’s exactly what other jurisdictions — like Alberta — are doing.”

Antweiler hasn’t seen the specific rate scenarios the province has been discussing with industry stakeholders. Those are covered by non-disclosure agreements, as Giddens pointed out to reporters.

Dix said non-disclosure agreements, known as NDAs, are a standard part of government consultations with both First Nations and industry stakeholders.

“The energy companies provide information to us about the impact of different possible royalty regimes and differences that are obviously commercially sensitive, so that’s done under NDA,” Dix said. “We put forward different proposals and asked them to comment on different potential proposals, just to see what the impact is on different companies.”

“I think that’s really irresponsible,” the Green Party’s Valeriote said of the government’s apparent concession on the two royalty scenarios. “I think we should be extracting the most value for the B.C. public out of these public resources, and caving into lobbyists and others who want to make it easier to make big profits, it’s just not good public policy.”

“No decision has been made,” Dix said when asked about the letter in the legislature on May 28.

“A lot of work has gone into the process and now we’re in the consultation stage,” he added. “This included extensive consultation with Treaty 8 First Nations and with energy companies.”

The minister told reporters he hopes to have a final decision on the new natural gas royalties later in June.

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 Oil Sands Alliance, formerly known as the Pathways Alliance, represents the largest companies operating in the Alberta oilsands.
• Since 2021, the alliance has promised a huge carbon capture project that will help reduce oilsands emissions by 68 megatonnes each year, three-quarters of the industrial region’s total.
• In the finalized memorandum of understanding between the Alberta and federal governments, that number has been quietly reduced to just 16 megatonnes annually, a reduction of 77 per cent from the initial promise.

Five years ago, the five largest oilsands producers promised their operations would be net-zero by 2050. The claims were huge: a massive carbon capture and storage project would help reduce emissions by 68 million tonnes of carbon each year.

Now, with a memorandum signed between Alberta and Ottawa to facilitate a new oilsands pipeline to the West Coast and promises of billions in tax credits to support the project, those promises have plummeted. 

In the agreement, finalized in May, it’s anticipated those same producers will reduce their emissions by 16 million tonnes annually by 2045, a significant decline from the original claim.

The pledge to achieve net-zero emissions in the oilsands was part of an intense pitch to governments over the past five years, alongside major lobbying to provide financial support for what could be the largest carbon capture project in the world.

It was put forward by the Pathways Alliance — now renamed the Oil Sands Alliance — made up of the largest companies operating in the Alberta oilsands: Suncor, Cenovus, Canadian Natural Resources, Imperial Oil and ConocoPhillips. 

The federal and provincial governments have now both unveiled tax credits for carbon capture, rolled back environmental regulations aimed at tackling emissions, pledged to fast-track projects and signed an agreement to aggressively push a new pipeline through British Columbia, even without a company willing to build it. 

Patrick McCurdy, a professor of communications at the University of Ottawa who has studied environmental claims by the alliance of oilsands companies, said the walkback fits into a larger pattern of greenwashing — a method in which companies mislead the public through those claims. 

He said the companies will “say whatever is politically convenient and what they can get away with” to build the social licence needed to keep producing oil. 

“They have that now with [Prime Minister Mark] Carney,” he said.

Academic paper found ‘numerous indicators of greenwashing’ in carbon capture project’s messaging

The coalition of companies, then called Pathways Alliance, explicitly called for reductions of 68 megatonnes of emissions per year and celebrated the goal in news releases, editorials and widespread advertising campaigns.The plan, with carbon capture and storage as its centrepiece, would be built in three phases, each phase eliminating between 21 and 25 megatonnes per year, according to those early pledges. There are no other detailed plans highlighted by the alliance to achieve its net-zero pledge. One megatonne is one million tonnes.

As late as December of last year, the Alberta government used the 68 megatonne figure in a presentation to U.S. lawmakers highlighting Alberta’s energy potential.

McCurdy has studied the claims of the Oil Sands Alliance since its inception and co-published a paper in 2023 focused on how it greenwashes information. 

The paper’s conclusion was unequivocal. 

“There are numerous indicators of greenwashing in Pathways Alliance’s public communication,” it reads. “Their messaging omits important information, uses misleading framing and comparisons, and fails to meet standards expected of a credible net-zero plan.”

It says the alliance’s environmental, social and governance claims should raise concern about the viability of its carbon capture and storage project.

Canada does have laws about greenwashing — though they were walked back by the Carney government last year. When those laws passed, Pathways wiped many environmental promises from its website. The anti-greenwashing provisions, part of the federal Competition Act, had been created in part to address the issue of companies advertising they were headed toward net-zero emissions while not presenting evidence showing they were taking any significant steps toward cutting their carbon pollution.

In an interview, McCurdy said it’s typical for oil and gas companies to make big public promises and then lobby behind the scenes to move the yardsticks. 

“I imagine they’re able to reduce these numbers, or change the numbers … because the social licence doesn’t seem to be threatened in the same way it was before,” he said.

The Oil Sands Alliance did not respond to questions from The Narwhal.

The office of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and the Alberta Environment and Protected Areas Minister Grant Hunter did not respond to emailed questions. 

The federal Privy Council Office did reply, but did not directly answer any of the emailed questions, instead highlighting the balance between economic growth and emissions reductions.

When asked if the federal government is confident the project can achieve the lowered target of 16 megatonnes, Pierre Cuguen, a spokesperson for the Privy Council Office, said the country already has operating carbon capture and storage projects that prove the technology can work in real-world conditions, while noting it aims to be the largest carbon capture project in the world. 

“Pathways will continue to go through detailed design work, regulatory review and investment decisions as the project moves forward,” he wrote.

The oilsands account for a third of all emissions in Alberta

The memorandum of understanding between Ottawa and Alberta finalized terms for everything from an industrial carbon price to building out a national electricity grid, but the terms related to the Pathways carbon capture project still require a three-way agreement with the companies behind the scheme. 

But the governments reaffirmed “their shared objective” of the project reducing emissions by 16 megatonnes annually by 2045, starting with six megatonnes when the project comes online in 2035. 

The oilsands emit approximately 90 megatonnes of emissions each year, almost 33 per cent of all emissions in Alberta. Since 2004, 15 megatonnes of emissions have been captured by existing carbon capture projects in the province, slightly more than one megatonne per year.

Both governments have agreed to walk back carbon price targets, streamline approvals of projects and the federal government has scrapped the proposed oil and gas emissions cap and largely handed environmental impact assessments over to the province. Each represents a lobbying victory for the oil and gas companies.

Sean McCoy, an associate professor of engineering at the University of Calgary who specializes in carbon capture, said the changes in emissions pledges are not due to any changes in technology or knowledge. 

“Let me put it this way, I bet 99 per cent of what we know today about capturing carbon dioxide, more like 99 or even above, we knew in 2021,” he said. 

McCoy said one possible answer to why the project has been scaled back so drastically is cost, comparing it to a home renovation where big plans are reconsidered as the price tag rises. 

“That is pretty common in these sorts of projects, either the cost goes up or the scope of the project shrinks if you’re trying to manage your budget,” he said.

But McCoy points out that even the reduced 16 megatonne figure represents the largest carbon capture and utilization project ever constructed.

When asked if the reduced target was achievable, McCoy said it’s ambitious.

“It’s just really, really big,” he said. “You’ve got to look at the scale of all the different parts, because it’s not like they’re going to capture 16 million tonnes at one smoke stack.”

It’s unclear how much the final project will cost, but estimates point to a budget over $20 billion, and the former CEO of Imperial Oil previously said the alliance was aiming for 75 per cent of the funds to come from the federal and provincial governments. Most of that will come from newly established tax credits.

Carbon capture is ‘always a just-around-the-corner type thing’: professor

There’s a lot we don’t know about the Pathways project, McCoy said, so it’s hard to directly evaluate the plans. 

McCurdy, looking at it through the lens of influence and communication, sees that as intentional. His research includes strategic omissions as part of the greenwashing strategy. 

“These companies, some of the biggest in the country, have the money to focus-group, to get the best creatives to make these campaigns to try and get public sentiment on their side,” he said.

But while earlier oilsands marketing focused on the need to decarbonize and the goal of achieving net-zero emissions, the messaging has changed alongside the reduced emissions ambitions. 

Jon McKenzie, the CEO of Cenovus, told investors in May the debate around oilsands development has been “myopically focused on the climate agenda,” according to the Canadian Press.

It’s a more direct pushback against the earlier claims of the alliance, but for McCurdy, the intent was always to kick the can down the road. 

“It’s always a just-around-the-corner type thing,” he said of carbon capture technology and some of its bigger claims. “It’s a well-known trope to try and look at technology to save us out of this.”

Updated June 5, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. MT: A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to the Oil Sands Alliance as the Oilsands Alliance.

Updated on June 25, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. MT: This story has been updated to correct an error. Past claims of the the Oil Sands Alliance, formerly known as the Pathway Alliance, promised 68 megatonnes of total emissions reduction, not of carbon capture specifically, as a previous version of this article and its headline stated. Carbon capture and storage has always been the centrepiece of the alliance’s plan, and no other detailed plans were highlighted by the alliance as ways to achieve its net-zero pledge.

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.