The Doug Ford government’s latest omnibus bill takes back a key power granted to municipalities to approve or block landfill projects in their communities and rewrites the rules for recycling.

The legislation, Bill 140, the Building Ontario Faster Act, was tabled on Oct. 27, less than a year after the province’s new Blue Box recycling program came into full force. The bill gives the province greater control over recycling costs and scales back recycling requirements for certain plastics, while opening the door to more garbage incineration projects.

The government said the move is needed to grow the province’s capacity to manage garbage in the face of dwindling landfill space and U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision in late October to impose a 50 per cent tariff on some Canadian waste crossing the border.

Ontario has relied on American landfills for decades. In 2024 alone, it shipped approximately 3.44 million tonnes of garbage south, accounting for 27 per cent of the province’s landfilled waste, according to industry group Waste to Resource Ontario.

How did Ontario’s recycling system get started?+

Ontario’s Blue Box program grew out of a different garbage problem.

In the 1960s, soft drink companies increasingly replaced refillable glass bottles with disposable cans and other containers. They were cheaper and more convenient for manufacturers and consumers, but they also created more garbage.

In the 1980s, Ontario was already facing concerns about dwindling landfill space. The Blue Box emerged as a solution, allowing households to separate recyclable materials from garbage for collection.

By the early 1990s, Ontario had established waste reduction goals and regulations to encourage recycling. And those efforts initially made a difference: Ontario met its goal of diverting at least 25 per cent of waste from disposal by 1992. 

But a decade later, the overall diversion rate, including waste from businesses and industries, had stalled at approximately 28 per cent.

As recycling expanded, so did its costs. In 2002, Ontario introduced a system that split recycling expenses between municipalities and packaging producers. Municipalities managed collection, while companies helped foot the bill. Over time, rising costs and disagreements over responsibility led the province to overhaul the system and eventually decided to hand producers full responsibility.

Ontario Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Todd McCarthy said the province needs a made-in-Ontario solution. “We have to build our landfill capacity because we’re running out,” McCarthy told reporters at a press conference late last month.

But waste experts say the proposals raise a bigger question: after decades of encouraging Ontarians to recycle more, is the province backtracking on its targets and making it easier to send even more packaging into the trash instead?  

What changed with Ontario’s Blue Box program?

In 2021, Ontario introduced a new framework for recycling programs called extended producer responsibility, which required companies producing packaging to fund and collect recycling, rather than municipalities and taxpayers sharing the bill.

The thinking was straightforward: if companies had to pay to collect and recycle their packaging, they would have a financial incentive to make it easier and cheaper to recycle in the first place.

The overhaul, which was rolled out in 2023, was also supposed to make recycling simpler for residents. Under the new program, the list of accepted materials became consistent across Ontario and expanded to include items such as coffee cups, black plastics, toothpaste tubes and certain laminated paper packaging.

The transition to full producer responsibility was completed on Jan. 1, 2026, with the not-for-profit Circular Materials overseeing much of the province’s Blue Box collection system. The organization was founded by some of those major packaging producers, like Loblaw, Pepsico and Proctor & Gamble.

Calvin Lakhan, co-creator of York University’s Waste Wiki project, said the province initially had ambitious plans to expand recycling to more places, like more commercial and multi-residential spaces, collect more materials and increase recycling targets. But the province narrowed the program’s planned scope and, in 2025, reduced or delayed several targets, including those for difficult-to-recycle flexible plastics, like chip bags and chocolate bar wrappers.

Lakhan said the biggest problem is that Ontario expanded what people could put in their recycling bins without having enough infrastructure to turn all those materials into new products. “Just because you can put something in the recycling bin doesn’t mean that it gets recycled,” he said.

Most Blue Box materials go through mechanical recycling, where they’re sorted, separated and processed before being sold to manufacturers that can use them to make something new. An aluminum can or plastic yogurt container, for example, can be processed and turned into new packaging. But a chip bag or plastic wrapper made of multiple layers of different materials is much harder and more expensive to recycle, and won’t necessarily be reused in the end.

And the costs of Ontario’s recycling program have grown significantly.

According to figures Lakhan provided, the residential Blue Box program cost approximately $90 million in 2002, when it was recycling about 55 per cent of all waste collected in the province. By 2024, annual costs had reached approximately $600 million, while the recycling rate remained around 55 per cent. Lakhan said much of the problem comes down to the changing types of packaging companies produce. Materials such as black plastics and multi-layered packing are difficult and expensive to recycle using existing infrastructure. 

So why is Ontario still sending garbage to the United States?

For years, American landfills offered Ontario a relatively affordable place to send its garbage. But that arrangement has become increasingly unstable.

According to Waste to Resource Ontario, the province generated approximately 17 million tonnes of waste in 2024, with 12.75 million tonnes sent for disposal in landfills. About a quarter of that, 3.44 million tonnes, went to the United States, primarily Michigan, New York and Ohio.

And Ontario is rapidly running out of landfill space for the garbage that stays in the province. Waste to Resource Ontario reports that 57 per cent of the province’s remaining landfill capacity is concentrated in just seven sites. The organization projects Ontario’s existing landfill capacity could be exhausted by 2037 if exports to the United States continue, or by 2034 if the border closes to Ontario’s garbage.

Is burning garbage becoming Ontario’s new solution?

Ontario is increasingly looking at another option: turning garbage into electricity. It’s called waste-to-energy, in which facilities burn garbage at high temperatures and then use the heat to produce steam and generate electricity.

The process reduces the amount of garbage that needs to be buried, but it doesn’t eliminate the need for landfills. Burning waste produces ash and emissions, which still need to be safely managed and disposed of. 

Ontario already has two major facilities using this technology: the Emerald Energy from Waste facility in Brampton and the Durham York Energy Centre in Courtice, east of Toronto. Last year, the province approved an environmental assessment screening report that cleared a path toward a major expansion of the Brampton facility. Emerald anticipates expansion work could begin in 2027, although the proposal has become a contentious environmental and public health issue locally due to benzo(a)pyrene emissions. The toxic chemical, which is produced through the incomplete combustion of organic materials, carries significant health risks and is estimated to be emitted at levels that exceed public health guidelines if the expansion goes ahead.

In June 2026, Ontario proposed changes that could make it easier to approve new incinerators by streamlining the environmental approval process for eligible facilities. The government said at the time this would encourage investment in waste-to-energy and help reduce pressure on landfills.

Lakhan said waste-to-energy facilities could help manage materials that conventional recycling struggles to process, particularly complex plastics and packaging such as chip bags, chocolate wrappers and other packaging made from several bonded materials. The concern, Lakhan said, is that if burning packaging becomes an easier option than recycling, companies may not use materials that can ultimately be reused.

What else would Bill 140 change?

The bill would also give the province greater control over how recycling costs are managed. Under Schedule 22, Ontario could regulate agreements between producer responsibility organizations, like Circular Materials, and the companies paying for recycling, including fees, contract terms and dispute resolution.

The bill would allow the government to require set rules for recycling contracts, including setting limits on the fees companies pay to have their packaging recycled. In a separate environmental registry notice, the province proposed requiring certain businesses, such as restaurants or shopping malls, to separate additional packaging material. The changes would also make recycling programs mandatory. The government said these measures would make recycling costs more transparent and predictable for the producers that pay for the system.

But Peter Hargreave, president of environmental consulting firm Policy Integrity Inc., said they depart from the original vision of producer responsibility, where the government established recycling targets and companies determined how best to meet them. Instead, he said, the province is increasingly focused on controlling costs rather than improving recycling results.

The government is reviewing whether flexible plastics should continue to be collected at the curb, be taken to recycling depots instead or be removed from the Blue Box program altogether. Other proposals could end mandatory collection of extra recyclables left beside bins when alternative collection options are available, change the rules for providing additional recycling bins and allow materials collected from small businesses and institutions to count toward producers’ recycling targets.

The province is taking feedback on these proposals until Nov. 26.

Circular Materials CEO Allen Langdon told The Narwhal in an emailed statement that he is concerned about changes to the recycling program being considered less than a year after it came into full force, and when higher fuel costs, tariffs and weaker markets for recycled materials have already put pressure on the system. 

“Potentially removing materials and introducing changes now will be challenging as Ontario’s recycling system has been built based on the government’s original intent and regulatory requirements,” Langdon said.

Hargreave said the uncertainty could discourage investment. He pointed to new recycling facilities in Cambridge and Napanee, along with upgrades at other facilities, designed to process materials such as flexible plastics. If Ontario removes those materials from the program, he said, some of those investments could be left without their intended purpose.

The province also wants to delay its target for reducing certain food and organic waste from 2025 to 2028.

Can Ontario avoid its looming garbage crisis by focusing on businesses?

A 2021 auditor general’s report found that while Ontario households diverted about half their waste, the non-residential sector — stores, factories, schools and more — diverted just 15 per cent in 2018, the latest year for which comparable figures were available.

While household recycling rules have undergone major changes, requirements for businesses and institutions had not been substantially updated in more than 25 years, leaving out commonly used materials such as coffee cups, compostable packaging and many plastics.

In 2019, David Lindsay, a special adviser appointed to help guide the Blue Box transition, recommended establishing clear recycling targets for different materials, encouraging reusable packaging and expanding efforts to recover waste from businesses and institutions.

His report called for recycling targets that would increase over time, encouraging companies to find new ways to process difficult materials rather than abandoning them. It also emphasized that reducing waste should come before finding new ways to process it.

Hargreave echoed those suggestions.

“Until we start to take a more holistic approach at tackling some of those bigger issues around industrial, commercial, institutional materials, we’re really not moving the yardsticks,” he said.

—With files from Fatima Syed

Rajpreet Sahota is a community and policy reporting fellow. Her position is funded in part 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.

On its first day back after a 21-week break, the government under Premier Doug Ford introduced a sweeping bill that could change how Ontarians learn about provincial decisions affecting the environment — and what residents can do if they disagree.

By day two, Bill 140, the Building Ontario Faster Act, 2026, reached second reading. But it didn’t sit well with the opposition.

“The government does not want people to tell them what they think. I very much would like the public to have a chance to participate in their democracy,” Oshawa MPP Jennifer K. French said during debate at Queen’s Park on Oct. 28.

For more than three decades, the Environmental Bill of Rights has given Ontarians a formal role in government decisions that could affect their air, water, land and communities.

“It gives the public a wide range of tools that they can use to protect themselves and protect the environment,” Richard Lindgren, a lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said. “But if Bill 140 is passed, those rights will disappear.”

Tabled by the minister of red tape reduction, Bill 140 would eliminate legal tools that allow residents to challenge certain environmental approvals, request reviews of existing environmental laws and ask the province to investigate suspected violations. It would also change how the public is notified about proposed environmental laws and policies.

For someone living near a proposed landfill, concerned about industrial pollution or worried about an approval affecting local drinking water, the changes could mean fewer opportunities to question government decisions or seek an independent review.

Environmental lawyers and former provincial watchdogs warn the proposed legislation could significantly weaken public participation and government accountability, leaving communities with fewer ways to challenge decisions that could harm the environment.

But Ontario Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Todd McCarthy defended the proposed changes, saying the legislation would eliminate duplication while maintaining environmental protections. He said the changes would maintain opportunities to comment on environmental proposals while eliminating processes he describes as seldom used and resource-intensive.

“Not only will public accountability not be diminished, it will be enhanced. It will be improved. It’ll be modernized for a modern world,” McCarthy told The Narwhal, standing outside Ford’s office at Queen’s Park.

The legislation has passed second reading and is now being reviewed by a smaller group of MPPs. The government posted the proposed amendments on the Environmental Registry of Ontario in late October, with a 30-day comment period scheduled to close Nov. 26.

Ontario’s Bill 140 and the Environmental Bill of Rights

The Building Ontario Faster Act is an omnibus bill that proposes changes to a wide range of provincial laws to accelerate infrastructure projects, reduce Ontario’s reliance on the United States for landfill capacity and make it easier for workers to move to Ontario from other provinces and territories.

The government says the legislation will make Ontario more competitive by reducing regulatory requirements, speeding up approvals and making it easier for businesses to invest and create jobs. It follows several bills the Ford government has introduced with similar intentions, like Bill 5, the Protect Ontario By Unleashing Our Economy Act, passed in 2025, and Bill 227, the Building Ontario, Cutting Red Tape Act, passed in 2024.

According to the province’s announcement, Bill 140 would eliminate nearly 220,000 days’ worth of permit processing time. “We’re giving businesses the confidence and predictability they need to invest and create jobs here in Ontario, so we can stand up to tariffs, protect our workers and build the most competitive economy in the G7,” Andrea Khanjin, Ontario’s minister of red tape reduction, said in the government’s announcement.

But among the legislation’s many provisions, Schedule 8 has drawn particular concern as it affects long-standing environmental legislation; Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights came into effect in early 1994, following years of public concern about pollution, environmental degradation and the government’s ability to protect natural resources.

Before the legislation, environmental decisions were largely made between government ministries and private companies, with little opportunity for residents to provide input. That meant a ministry could approve a facility discharging contaminants into a creek without first notifying the people living nearby or giving them an opportunity to comment.

The public push for change eventually led to a task force created under Ontario’s NDP government in 1990, bringing together representatives from environmental organizations, industry and government. After 55 meetings and months of negotiations, the group reached a consensus on legislation intended to give the public tools to protect the environment and their communities.

Bill 140 further exempts postings on Ontario’s environmental registry

Among the tools introduced by the bill of rights is the Environmental Registry of Ontario, a public website where provincial ministries post notices about certain environmentally significant proposals and decisions, and residents can submit comments. The Ford government has already removed that requirement for some projects, like Ontario Place, and on some types of actions, like those relating to at-risk species.

Under Bill 140, the province would eliminate the requirement for posting notices on the Environmental Registry of Ontario when they are also posted on the Ontario Regulatory Registry, a separate website where ministries post proposed and completed policy changes. Reshaping municipal bike lane policies, for example, would no longer need to be posted to the environmental registry.

Not all environmental notices would move. Proposals for prescribed environmental permits, licences and other approvals would continue to be posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario. But Philip Pothen, in-house counsel and Ontario environment program manager for advocacy organization Environmental Defence, said the two registries serve different purposes.

He argued the environmental registry provides mandatory advance notice of environmentally significant decisions, while postings on the regulatory registry are not backed by the same legal requirements. Ministries can seek exemptions from posting on the regulatory registry before policy amendments are made, unlike the environmental registry where advance notice of certain environmentally significant proposals is required by law.

“These are totally different things. They are not duplicates,” Pothen said. “If there was some duplication to be eliminated, it should eliminate the regulatory registry posting because that’s the one that’s voluntary.”

He said advance notice is essential because it gives the public time to understand proposed changes and raise concerns before decisions are finalized. “Our system only works when we actually know before laws are brought into force, before they’re introduced to parliament and certainly before regulations or policies become implemented.”

The environmental registry has brought controversial government decisions to public attention in the past. In 2022, the Ford government’s proposal to remove 7,400 acres from Ontario’s protected Greenbelt was posted on the environmental registry. About 29,200 submissions were received in response to the proposed Greenbelt changes. The government initially made no changes to the proposal in response to those comments, but later reversed its decision amid widespread public and media scrutiny. 

Pothen fears weakening advance-notice requirements could allow environmentally significant decisions to proceed before the public has time to scrutinize them.

“They’re not cutting red tape,” Pothen said. “They’re tearing down the guardrails between us and corruption. They’re tearing down the guardrails between us and very serious environmental risks.”

Rights to review and investigate projects with environmental impacts weakened under Bill 140

One of those guardrails is what’s known as Section 61 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which enables Ontarians to formally ask the government to examine whether an existing rule or approval is outdated or failing to protect the environment.

Lindgren, who was among those who helped draft Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights in the ’90s, said his organization has used the process, known as an application for review, on behalf of clients to push for stronger environmental protections. He recalled a case in which the Canadian Environmental Law Association requested a review of an approval allowing a company to release lead into the surrounding air. The approval was subsequently revoked.

The bill would also eliminate the formal application process for requesting investigations into suspected environmental violations. Currently, two residents can apply to the Ministry of Environment for an investigation into violations of environmental laws or conditions of approvals. The ministry must follow prescribed procedures and timelines when responding, including reporting on its findings.

If Bill 140 passes, those formal application rights would disappear. The government said residents would still be able to report suspected environmental violations directly to the Environment Ministry, but the formal process for addressing it and communicating with applicants wouldn’t apply.

Another proposed change would remove the right under the Environmental Bill of Rights for third parties to appeal certain environmental approvals to the independent Ontario Land Tribunal. Lindgren said that mechanism has allowed community groups to challenge approvals for landfills, water-taking and industrial emissions. In some cases, he said, appeals have resulted in permits being revoked or revised to include stronger environmental safeguards.

For residents concerned about a potentially harmful project in their neighbourhood, losing that avenue could mean fewer opportunities to have an independent tribunal examine the government’s decision.

Bill 140 would also repeal provisions allowing certain legal actions to counter harm to public resources, such as air, land and water, and remove a procedural protection for people bringing public nuisance lawsuits, which include things like pollution. The government said people would still be able to bring public nuisance actions through the courts.

Lindgren warned that affected communities may increasingly turn to civil litigation or judicial review to challenge potentially harmful projects. That could ultimately create the very delays the government said it wants to eliminate.

He said the formal rights to request environmental reviews, investigations and appeals are distinct legal mechanisms and cannot simply be replaced by other government consultation processes. “There are no other alternatives out there,” he said. “There are no other laws that allow people to do what they’re allowed to do, and are entitled to do, under the Environmental Bill of Rights.”

If the legislation passes as written, several of these changes, including those relating to appeals, reviews and investigations, would be retroactive to Oct. 27.

‘The Environmental Bill of Rights is basically gone’: former environment commissioner

The Environmental Bill of Rights also requires designated ministries to develop statements of environmental values explaining how they would consider environmental principles when making decisions. They are held accountable to those statements by another central feature of the bill: an independent environmental commissioner.

But those and other protections have gradually weakened. In 2018, the Ford government passed legislation eliminating the independent environmental commissioner’s office and its responsibilities were subsequently transferred to the auditor general and the Environment Ministry.

Dianne Saxe was Ontario’s final environmental commissioner. “It was my office that was one of the major protections and tools to make the Environmental Bill of Rights count,” she told The Narwhal.

Saxe said successive legislative changes under the Ford government have weakened the province’s environmental protections built over decades. “It’s a death of 1,000 cuts,” she said. “The things that are being eliminated now are actual rights.”

She said the latest proposal eliminates many of the remaining safeguards of the bill.

“The Environmental Bill of Rights is basically gone,” Saxe said. “We have a minor right of notice and comment, knowing that this government ignores most comments that are trying to protect a livable future.”

In a March 2024 report, the Law Commission of Ontario documented several cases in which residents had successfully used their rights to improve environmental protections. These included the revocation of landfill approvals, stopping a cement plant from burning tires, plastic and other waste and an end to snapping turtle hunting. But the commission concluded that the legislation had fallen short of its objectives, citing government non-compliance, weakened public participation rights and reduced independent oversight. The commission recommended broad reforms to strengthen environmental accountability.

The province’s auditor general has also repeatedly raised concerns about how the Environmental Bill of Rights has been implemented. In a 2025 report, the auditor general listed numerous concerns, including the Ford government’s passing of Bill 17, which targeted municipal green building standards, before completing required environmental consultations and considering all public comments. It also found the province had exempted permits and approvals for Highway 413 and the Ontario Place redevelopment from certain consultation requirements.

Still, the auditor general concluded that the law continued to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation. During that reporting period, Ontarians submitted thousands of comments on environmental proposals, requested six reviews and investigations and challenged four ministry decisions involving environmentally significant permits and approvals.

In some cases, public comments resulted in changes to government decisions, such as improvements to how waste is diverted in Far North communities.

For Gord Miller, who for 15 years was Ontario’s environmental commissioner and is now chair of Earthroots, a registered environmental charity, one of the most consequential changes is the proposed elimination of statements of environmental values by ministries.

“Doesn’t the public have a right to know what exactly the environmental values of a ministry are, and what are they making their decisions based upon?”

He said the former environmental commissioner’s office could ask ministries to explain how they had considered those commitments when making major decisions. Removing the requirement, he argued, takes away another way to hold government decision-makers accountable. 

Miller fears the changes could bring Ontario back to the situation that led governments to create environmental protections decades ago.

“I know exactly what will happen because it already did back in the late 1960s and into the early ’70s,” he said. And that, he said, is how Ontario ended up with an Environmental Bill of Rights in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vancouver trial to test international climate law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Canada Day, parts of Ottawa were hit with a one-in-200-year storm. Nearly four months later, it’s still having an impact as the polls open for Ontario’s municipal elections.

As much as 167 millimetres of rain, more than an average month’s worth, fell in a matter of hours on the southwest corner of the city on July 1. Combined with high winds, the storm closed roads and downed power lines. City staff admitted the sudden deluge overwhelmed neighbourhood drainage systems, and more than 7,000 people reported their basements had flooded. It was a big contributor to what became Ottawa’s wettest summer on record.

But it was all heavily concentrated in one part of the city — so localized, in fact, that Environment and Climate Change Canada didn’t even clock it in its system for monitoring climate-driven extreme weather, a spokesperson confirmed to The Narwhal. That system only looks at rainfall across the broader region, which didn’t record the same degree of rainfall levels that day.

The lopsided impact demonstrates how climate change doesn’t affect everyone equally.

Some residents are more exposed to climate risks, like those who live along shoreline, or in neighbourhoods that don’t have robust enough sewer systems to handle huge amounts of stormwater.

That’s a big issue for Ottawa, as both heavy rains and flooding are expected to be significant risks across the city in the future, as the climate keeps heating up from fossil fuel use.

A 2020 report commissioned by the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Commission predicted that climate change will bring “more intense precipitation.” This will increase the risk of flooding and stormwater overflows, and “municipal planning must account for climate impacts, including future flood risks,” the report noted.

“The real surprise isn’t the storm. The surprise is that we are still treating these events as unexpected rather than preparing for the climate reality we know is already here,” Community Action for Environmental Sustainability Ottawa said in a statement following the storm. 

“Every flood, every heat wave and every major storm is another reminder. Climate action isn’t only about preventing a dire, far-off future, it’s about protecting our communities today.”

Many Ottawans have spent months dealing with the mess the storm caused, removing ruined furniture and mould, while also dealing with the complexities of insurance that left some people out of pocket. Meanwhile, the city has been investigating flooding impacts and studying what can be done to fix the situation.

The issue has spilled over into the Oct. 26 municipal elections. All four leading candidates in Ottawa’s mayoral race have promised to do something to protect residents from future flooding.

Ottawa mayoral candidates talk flooding

According to Jeff Leiper, a three-term city councillor who is running for mayor, the Canada Day storm was another example of the extreme weather, energized by climate change, that has pummelled the city in recent years. There have been multiple tornadoes, heat waves, flooding, toxic wildfire smoke and a derecho storm.

“On the whole, we have a good idea that we need to make our infrastructure considerably more resilient to more extreme storms,” he told The Narwhal in an interview. “But we are not at the point where we have funded making our infrastructure appropriately resilient.”

Leiper has announced a $50-million plan to fix sewers and other infrastructure in the three Ottawa wards hit hardest by the Canada Day storm. His plan would also increase grants to those impacted by flooding, create a new team to help residents with insurance claims and relief programs, waive permit fees for flood repairs and increase municipal staff responding to 3-1-1 calls during major storm events. 

Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, who has held the title since 2022, is running for a second term. He plans to prioritize $500 million in funding for “infrastructure that make[s] our communities stronger in the face of extreme weather,” including heavy rains which cause flooding. He said he would “expand the application of a climate lens for infrastructure investments.” A spokesperson for his campaign told The Narwhal he will make “all necessary investments” to fix infrastructure “in the areas directly impacted by the July 1 storm.”

Sutcliffe’s plan includes upgraded storm sewers and ditches, with priority “given to addressing infrastructure gaps in flood-prone communities as guided by expert recommendations.” 

The campaign spokesperson said they disagreed with Leiper’s assertion that climate infrastructure hasn’t been funded. Ottawa’s 2026 budget includes $94 million in capital contributions “that apply a climate lens to projects across the city.”

Another mayoral candidate, Neil Saravanamuttoo, an economist, plans to replace sewers, prioritize infrastructure investments in existing neighbourhoods and carry out flood mitigation measures like creating stormwater ponds and planting trees. He is also promising “city-run neighbourhood retrofits,” where the city arranges the bulk of the buying and financing, and also helps residents apply for federal rebates.

“The Canada Day flooding was a wake up call for Ottawa,” Saravanamuttoo’s platform states. “Weather events that we thought were once-in-a-century events are now happening every few years, and we are seeing the significant cost that flooding can impose on Ottawa households.”

Alex Lawson, a business owner who is another contender for mayor, said he would review the city’s process for responding to disasters and produce a report that examines maintenance records for sewers, street by street. 

A spokesperson for the Lawson campaign, Laura Kurkimaki, also said Lawson has experience navigating disaster response from his time on the board of West Carleton Disaster Relief, and he believes the city’s emergency response plan puts “too much pressure on volunteer organizations.”

City staff, mayor dispute minister’s comments on flood response

Leiper said he felt the city’s response to the flooding was “far too slow” and that as mayor, he would have “visited the flooded sites earlier and more frequently.”

At an Oct. 6 meeting of the Ontario legislature’s Justice committee, Chandra Pasma, the NDP MPP for Ottawa West–Nepean, the riding which includes the affected area, also criticized the provincial response. 

“Why was no help sent to Ottawa, despite the city’s request to actually help people clean out their homes and make them safe to live in again?” she asked.

“In the situation in Ottawa, the flooding and the rain happened on July 1. We didn’t receive a request for assistance until July 9,” Ontario Emergency Preparedness Minister Jill Dunlop said. “When we did have the request for assistance from Ottawa, we did work with some of our partner organizations.”

Sutcliffe’s campaign disputes both the minister’s timeline and Leiper’s comment about the city’s response. 

The campaign’s spokesperson told The Narwhal that Sutcliffe and his office had spoken with city staff and emergency officials the day of the storm, and that the following day, July 2, he “spoke personally with residents and councillors in the affected areas.” 

“Over the course of the following days he continued to contact affected residents, visit them on site and direct city officials to provide immediate solutions,” the spokesperson said. He then spoke with Dunlop, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Municipal Affairs Minister Rob Flack on July 2 and 3, the spokesperson added.

A city general manager also told CBC News city staff were in touch with the provincial emergency operations centre immediately following the floods and maintained contact “nearly daily.”

Dunlop’s office did not respond to a request for comment from The Narwhal. 

Ottawa is just one of 414 municipal governments holding elections across the province, with 2,800 elected positions to be filled, according to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Local governments are responsible for administering the vote. Find your municipality’s contact information here.

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

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

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

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate action hasn’t kept pace with promises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She believes progress has been too slow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Mississauga, emissions are not falling fast enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Residents see both progress and setbacks in Brampton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was produced in collaboration with the Toronto Star.

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

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

Is this really all we have to work with? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting in a polycrisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gail Krantzberg spent decades working on Great Lakes policy and protection — years before this whirlwind year of politics on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border crept into the ways the lakes are protected. 

In Canada, U.S. President Donald Trump’s ongoing trade war has seen federal and provincial legislation introduced in the name of national sovereignty, with major implications for the land, water and air. Now, Trump has given Lake Ontario a new name — at least for the purposes of the U.S. federal government and a couple online mapping services — like Google — that (controversially) followed suit. 

But changing the name doesn’t change the international boundary running through the lake. Nor does the executive order change the agreements and institutions developed by Canada and the United States to manage their shared waters, Krantzberg said.

Krantzberg, now a McMaster University professor, previously served as director of the Great Lakes regional office under the International Joint Commission, an independent organization established by the two countries more than a century ago to resolve disputes over transboundary waters.

Lake Ontario’s name dates back to the 17th century and comes from the Wendat word Ontarïio’, which means the lake is beautiful and great. It’s a part of the Great Lakes system where pollution, invasive species and the effects of a changing climate don’t stop at an international boundary. Protecting the lakes has long depended on governments, scientists and communities on both sides of the border working together.

The framework for that co-operation dates back to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty. The treaty set out how the U.S. and Canada would manage shared waters, including the Great Lakes.

That co-operation expanded in the 1970s as serious pollution problems emerged in Lake Erie. High levels of phosphorus contributed to major algae growth and fish deaths, prompting Canada and the United States to sign the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. The agreement was updated in 1978, 1987 and again in 2012. It sets shared priorities for protecting the lakes, including controlling invasive species, reducing agricultural pollution or responding to the effects of climate change.

Amidst everything else going on, many people are questioning what, if anything, Lake Ontario’s name change actually means for the Great Lake and the many transboundary efforts to protect it. Here’s what Krantzberg had to say.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What are your biggest concerns about Lake Ontario right now, in light of the Trump administration changing its name — particularly when it comes to environmental protection and governance?

The name change is, in a way, a distraction from what’s actually happening to the lake. So we start worrying about the name change, and how he can do that and about hundreds of years of history of native naming of Ontario. There’s all this conversation, but it steers the conversation away from what Trump is actually doing for Ontario and all the Great Lakes. 

He’s pro-deregulation. Air emissions from coal-fired utilities, for example, continue to put out more mercury, and that mercury gets into the Great Lakes, the fish and the wildlife or humans that consume them. 

The pushback on banning and phasing out of very persistent chemicals like perfluorinated chemicals or PFASs — some people call them forever chemicals. These things will last in the Great Lakes for centuries, they basically do not break down. They have very detrimental effects on the health of humans as well as wildlife.

The cutting of monitoring — atmospheric monitoring, surveillance monitoring for weather forecasting and climate change modelling — puts not just our understanding of how the lakes are going to behave, but actually shipping at risk. We need to be able to forecast severe weather events so that cities can protect their drinking water for their people and shipping can be protected. 

The cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are really very, very serious. In fact, its Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory was cut by about 35 per cent. You lose the capacity to monitor and understand the lakes, and if you can’t understand the lakes, you can’t protect the lakes.

Beyond changing the name on U.S. maps and federal documents, does this have any practical effect on jurisdiction over Lake Ontario?

No. The only thing that that rename applies to is U.S. federal agencies and institutions. Of course, Trump has managed to get Google and Amazon and others to change their map online. If you go into the map online in the states, you’ll see Lake America. If you go to Canada, you’ll see Lake Ontario. If you go internationally, you’ll see both. 

But frankly, it’s the same body of water and it’s governed the same way. The states do not have to pay attention to it. In fact, we’ve heard the New York State governor say it’s Lake Ontario. Our prime minister and our premier said it’s Lake Ontario and it will always be Lake Ontario. 

In the states, certain federal administrations have to abide by the president’s order. It only applies to their name of Lake America. We don’t know yet, but it should not apply to how it’s managed or the nature of the challenges and threats to the lake.

Does either country have the legal ability to unilaterally assert greater control or jurisdiction over Lake Ontario? If so, what are the limits?

There is no way. Any control is only in terms of control of levels and flows of the lakes. So we can control the levels and flows just to protect commerce, people and ecosystems. For various reasons, we need to control levels and flows and that responsibility lies with the International Joint Commission. It is not driven by a desire by Canada or the United States to do one thing or another.

That said, nobody, no one really controls the lakes. That’s a massive piece of water — you can’t control that. What you can do is make it better or worse on your side of the border. And what we’re worried about right now is that it’s going to get worse on the U.S. side of the border, which means since the water goes all through the system, it will get worse on the Canadian side. One country cannot protect without the other country protecting.

Could a move like this affect the long-standing system of collaboration and shared management between Canada and the United States?

The name of the lake is only about how Trump and Ford don’t like each other, and so Trump said, ‘You know what, bully Mr. Ford. I’m not going to call it Ontario because I don’t like Ontario, so I’m going to call it America.’ That’s all that that is. 

This whole thing about American federal scientists in the United States having a censor happened well over a year ago. I remember getting invited to a conference where this particular invitation said, ‘If you are U.S. federal scientists, check with your administration whether you can attend because this is an international gathering.’ So that was a warning. It’s an international gathering. You may not be able to come and share your knowledge because you’ve been told you’re not supposed to share. 

Now, I don’t know what the rationale is behind that because we’ve always shared information. We’ve always shared science. In fact, when we monitor the Great Lakes, we coordinate surveillance and monitoring. A lot of that monitoring data is now not available to a lot of Canadian scientists who collaborated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on hydrological modelling to understand climate change in the Great Lakes.

I believe co-operation on both sides of the border will continue. And I’ll say this because we have the Conference of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers. They are motivated to work together as a unit, regardless of country. The Great Lakes are a precious resource for their economy, for their social well-being, for their culture and for their people. They continually work on projects and programs to build, strengthen and protect the economy of the Great Lakes region, which is a multitrillion-dollar economy.

That co-operation and collaboration at the governor level is happening. At the mayor’s level, it’s happening. The Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities Initiative has more than 400 mayors from both sides of the border. They’re passing resolutions on what they will do collectively to protect the waters of the Great Lakes for their shared benefits. 

The only collaboration that will be paused — and I think that’s the right word — is collaboration with U.S. federal scientists. But there are a lot of other scientists in the U.S. that collaborate with Canadian scientists, and that continues. 

But the overall collaboration, we’ve seen before. We saw when Trump came in and wanted to destroy, zero out funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which is a $300-million or so initiative to restore degraded areas around the Great Lakes. The governors said no way. The governor stopped them. It didn’t matter if they were Democrat or Republican. They said that’s jobs, that’s the environment, that creates wealth, that creates beauty in our waterfronts, that increases property values, that’s tax revenue. Like, hands off. This is not frivolous tree-hugging stuff. This is restoration of waters and of well being, and they stopped that.

Do you feel there has been a gap in coverage or public understanding of what this name change actually means for Lake Ontario?

There’s a lot of anger. There’s some people who laugh. You can call it what you want. It’s still Lake Ontario. 

But I would hope that the focus is on how we all work to ensure the lake stays protected. How do we ensure we do what we can, even as individuals, to do our part to be stewards for the lakes?

One of the messages that I’m hoping will come out of all of this is let’s not get distracted by a name change that will eventually be reversed anyway. Once Trump is gone, it’s not going to stick. That’s my prediction. I could be wrong. Let’s not get distracted by a political jockeying of position and power mongering. Let’s focus on what’s important, and that is the health of the Great Lakes.

Rajpreet Sahota is a community and policy reporting fellow. Her position is funded in part 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.

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

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

That one word, essence, bore considerable weight. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s dive in.

What’s the deal with that leaked document?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The document says it’s not moving fast enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this just a passing idea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

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

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

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

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

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

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

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

What else is the Alberta government saying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

• Two decades of records show Canadian politicians making big promises about carbon capture technology.
• In 2008, one government report claimed Canada could capture as much as 600 million tonnes of carbon a year — and carbon capture technology could be “implemented quickly.”
• From 2000 to 2024, a total of just 68.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was captured across Canada and experts say the technology has yet to be proven at scale.

It was March 2007. Apple had just debuted the iPhone. The Iraq War was raging. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth had won two Oscars. And the prime minister of Canada was talking about “the exciting new technology called carbon capture and storage.”

“Instead of pumping tonnes of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere, we may be able to collect it from our oilsands, our coal-fired electrical plants and other industrial emitters, and pump it deep underground where it will remain for eternity,” Stephen Harper told a crowd of journalists at an event in Edmonton that year.

“If we can perfect this technology, we can use it not only to curb Canada’s contribution to greenhouse gas production, but we could also export it around the world.”

It was the beginning of a long line of claims from political leaders in Canada about how carbon capture could slash planet-warming industrial emissions, including in the oilsands, the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserve, where 159 billion barrels lie buried under Albertan sand and clay.

For close to 20 years, both Liberal and Conservative governments have talked about using carbon capture and storage technology to filter out carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from exhaust streams and store it so it doesn’t get released into the atmosphere, where it traps heat and causes climate change. Yet, while oilsands carbon pollution more than doubled from 2007 to 2024 to 92 million tonnes, the ability of facilities in Canada to capture carbon from industrial sources hasn’t yet grown beyond a few million tonnes of emissions per year.

Meanwhile, the consequences of fossil fuels and climate change are being felt today. Life is more expensive, cities have dirtier air from wildfires, deadly heat waves and other extreme weather are more common, First Nations are disproportionately threatened with disasters and Canadians are more at risk of poverty, heart disease, cancer and premature death.

Around the time Harper spoke in Edmonton, mining the oilsands was thought to be generating 26 million tonnes of emissions. Since then, the federal national inventory report has recalculated historical emissions using updated methodologies and new data to find it was closer to 41 million tonnes. The petroleum in the oilsands starts as a viscous goo called bitumen, and takes large amounts of electricity, steam, fuel and heavy machinery to mine and transform into usable products. This extra activity means oilsands production has been associated with more emissions than some other oil deposits, adding to its climate impact when its end products like gasoline are eventually burned for energy.

There was also a boom happening when Harper made his remarks. Investment in the oilsands had tripled from 2003 to 2007, leap-frogging manufacturing, while oil and gas operating profits had doubled. Office space in Calgary, where many oil companies are headquartered, had dried up as the province rode a wave of record-low unemployment. By 2009, production levels from the oilsands would muscle out other forms of oil production in Canada.

Scientists agree the way to slow the chaos unleashed by climate change is to stop using so much oil, gas and coal. But Harper wasn’t about to impose strict government limits on oilsands emissions that day in 2007. Instead, he would talk about using carbon capture as a possible environmental and economic solution.

“This is a dream that could truly change the world,” he said.

“Friends, the era of empty rhetoric on the environment is over. We’re taking real action that will produce real, tangible results.”

Nineteen years later, that dream is still waiting to be realized.

From 2000 to 2024, 68.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was captured in the country, Environment and Climate Change Canada confirmed to The Narwhal. That means the oilsands added more emissions to the atmosphere in one year, 2024, than carbon capture equipment has ever stopped from industrial sources over roughly a quarter-century.

It’s also a small fraction of the capture amounts once thought possible. A 2008 report that came out of Harper’s announcement said Canada could theoretically capture as much as 600 million tonnes a year, and that carbon capture could be “implemented quickly, within a decade, using existing technology.”

Carbon capture and storage “is a viable way to achieve significant domestic greenhouse gas reductions,” the report stated, and is a “must-have for western Canada which relies on fossil energy.”

Instead, after tremendous attention and investment, this year Canada will be able to capture “on the order of several [million] tonnes per year,” a Natural Resources Canada spokesperson told The Narwhal. (The department declined to offer a precise figure when asked.)

Capturing this amount when the oil industry is sending so much more into the air is equivalent to taking a million cars off the highway while 30 million more drive up the on-ramp.

“Carbon capture has never, ever been proven at scale, or price. That’s just a fact,” Catherine McKenna, a former environment minister under the Justin Trudeau government, said in an interview.

“The oil and gas companies talked to me about carbon capture and storage, and made promises, for like a decade. We have yet to see anything.”

Now, like Harper before him, Prime Minister Mark Carney is putting his faith in carbon capture technology to do the heavy lifting, while he advocates for more oil production.

Carney struck a deal with Alberta that promises not to follow through with a Trudeau-era proposal for an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector.

Instead, the deal, meant to grow oil production and get a new oil pipeline to the West Coast built, includes an agreement to build a carbon capture and storage network in the province.

In July, five oilsands companies agreed to terms that envision using carbon capture to suck out six million tonnes of oilsands emissions per year by 2035. The project, dubbed Pathways, is supposed to use a “range of technologies” to eventually capture 16 million tonnes per year by 2045.

“The Alberta [deal] will build carbon capture and storage,” Carney said in Parliament in January. “It will build our future.” The deal, he told reporters in June, is about “working together, getting results for the citizens.”

His minister of energy and natural resources, Tim Hodgson, a former oilsands company board member, told a Calgary business crowd last year that the government, as much as private industry, should be pulling to get Pathways off the ground.

“All of us — governments and industry — need to get the Pathways project done. This government will not be a government of talk, but a government of action,” Hodgson said.

The federal government was boasting about being ‘a world leader in carbon capture’ in 2011

Harper’s full remarks from that day in 2007 are held at the national archives in Ottawa, where The Narwhal listened to a recording of them in June.

But plenty of other comments exist online in the public record of others talking optimistically about carbon capture to lower emissions.

In 2011, for example, Harper’s then-natural resources minister Joe Oliver said Canada was “a world leader in carbon capture and storage” and was “in an excellent position to use this technology on a wide scale.”

The next year he repeated this message: “Canada is in an excellent position to lead the world in the development, implementation and deployment of carbon capture and storage technology.”

In 2013, he said the government was “devoting significant amounts of money to carbon capture and storage, and we are doing that in co-operation with companies.”

Oliver now opposes the latest carbon capture proposal in the oilsands, in part because of the technology’s spotty track record and uncertain impact.

The trend continued after Trudeau’s Liberal government won power in 2015. Trudeau’s first natural resources minister, Jim Carr, told a ballroom full of energy analysts in New York in 2016 that carbon capture is one of “the most pressing issues of the day.”

The next year, he said carbon capture improves Canada’s “environmental performance.”

One of Carr’s successors, Seamus O’Regan, would describe carbon capture as “an integral part of lowering emissions” and said it was part of “how we get to net zero.” In 2021, he told CBC News Canada was “on the cusp of doing a lot of these things.”

François-Philippe Champagne, who in 2024 was Trudeau’s industry minister and is now finance minister, described Canadian companies then as “world leaders in carbon capture” and portrayed it as one of the “clean-tech solutions for the net-zero economy.”

(Story continues below.)

Two decades of political support for carbon capture

• Jan. 23, 2006: Harper Conservatives win minority government
• May 11, 2006 “Canada is already on the right track, particularly in research on energy efficiency, alternative energy sources and carbon capture and storage technologies. These technological advances will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will enable Canada to capitalize on its huge energy potential for the benefit of all Canadians.”— Christian Paradis, parliamentary secretary to the minister of natural resources, in Parliament
• March 8, 2007 “Instead of pumping tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere, we may be able to collect it from our oilsands, our coal-fired electrical plants and other industrial emitters, and pump it deep underground where it will remain for eternity. … Friends, the era of empty rhetoric on the environment is over.”— Stephen Harper, prime minister, Library and Archives Canada
• April 4, 2008 “Our government is ensuring that Canada is at the leading edge of clean technologies to reduce emissions and adapt to environmental change. That is why in Budget 2008, we announced $5 million … [to] address outstanding issues in the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies.”— Gary Lunn, natural resources minister, press release
• Oct. 14, 2008: Harper Conservatives win minority government
• Oct. 18, 2009 “Carbon capture and storage is the most viable technology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our government’s recent investment in large-scale demonstration projects further advances Canada’s leadership in this technology, while building a knowledge base to share this expertise with our global partners.”— Lisa Raitt, natural resources minister, press release
• March 16, 2010 “The $1-billion fund relating to green technology investments, including carbon capture and storage, which was set up in the 2009 budget, is not a research investment. These are demonstration projects investments. … The only known technology to abate carbon emissions from thermal coal plants is carbon capture and storage. It is the only technology that has ever been discovered that can actually abate emissions.”— Jim Prentice, environment minister, at committee
• May 2, 2011: Harper Conservatives win majority government
• June 24, 2011 “Canada is a world leader in carbon capture and storage and we are in an excellent position to use this technology on a wide scale.”— Joe Oliver, natural resources minister, press release
• March 27, 2012 “Canada is in an excellent position to lead the world in the development, implementation and deployment of carbon capture and storage technology.”— Joe Oliver, natural resources minister, at committee
• May 21, 2013 “We are devoting significant amounts of money to carbon capture and storage, and we are doing that in co-operation with companies, because that is the way to do it. Our government is a world leader in carbon capture and storage.”— Joe Oliver, natural resources minister, in Parliament
• Oct. 6, 2014 “We were proud to support the research and development of carbon capture and sequestration, and see the technology developed through commercialization at the Boundary Dam project, a technology that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at that facility by 90 per cent. We remain committed to growing the economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions with world-leading technologies.”—Greg Rickford, natural resources minister, in Parliament
• Feb. 19, 2015 “Since 2006, our government has made investments of over $10 billion to transition Canada toward a clean energy economy and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the long term. … These funds have helped establish Canada as a global leader in the research, development and demonstration of carbon capture and storage technologies.”— Colin Carrie, parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment, in Parliament
• Oct. 19, 2015: Trudeau Liberals win majority government
• April 4, 2016 On a North American memorandum of understanding on climate and energy: “It’s an aspirational agreement that focuses our three countries on the most pressing issues of the day … [including] advancing the competitiveness of carbon capture, use and storage.”— Jim Carr, natural resources minister, prepared remarks for a speech
• Sep. 14, 2017 “Carbon capture and utilization technology creates new products and business revenue stream opportunities while improving our environmental performance, creating jobs and driving clean growth in the process.”— Jim Carr, natural resources minister, press release
• Nov. 9, 2018 About a $2-million investment in a carbon capture project: “This project leverages today’s traditional resources to deliver tomorrow’s clean energy solutions. Developing and adopting clean technologies will help Canada meet its domestic and international climate change commitments and help maintain our natural resource advantage for years to come.”— Amarjeet Sohi, natural resources minister, press release
• June 17, 2019 On signing two memorandums of understanding: “The second commits Natural Resources Canada and the Japan Coal Energy Center to work together on clean energy, including carbon capture utilization and storage technologies.”“Canada is taking a leadership role in the clean growth century by balancing the environment and economy both domestically and internationally.”— Paul Lefebvre, parliamentary secretary to the minister of natural resources, press release
• Oct. 21, 2019: Trudeau Liberals win minority government 
• June 15, 2020 “We see carbon capture and sequestration as an integral part of lowering emissions and making emissions more competitive, making our oil and gas industry more competitive.”— Seamus O’Regan, natural resources minister, at committee
• March 9, 2021 “Carbon capture technology creates jobs, lowers emissions and increases our competitiveness. This is how we get to net zero.”— Seamus O’Regan, natural resources minister, press release
• April 21, 2021 “I lead a department of scientists who are looking at things like carbon capture and storage, both onshore and offshore. … We are on the cusp of doing a lot of these things.”— Seamus O’Regan, natural resources minister, interview
• Sept. 20, 2021: Trudeau Liberals win minority government
• March 28, 2022 “We are taking bold action on climate change. … We see carbon capture and underground storage as part of the solution.”— Terry Duguid, parliamentary secretary to the minister of environment and climate change, in Parliament
• Feb. 7, 2023 “We are investing billions of dollars in climate action and into the new economy. We have eliminated six fossil fuel subsidies and are on our way to eliminating nine. We need to use every tool in the toolbox to reduce our emissions, including carbon capture.”— Terry Duguid, parliamentary secretary to the minister of environment and climate change, in Parliament
• May 8, 2024 “My colleagues are well aware that Canadian companies are world leaders in carbon capture and hydrogen fuel cell technology. That’s why we will continue to support the adoption of made-in-Canada clean-tech solutions for the net-zero economy.”— François-Philippe Champagne, industry minister, at committee
• April 28, 2025: Carney Liberals win minority government
• May 23, 2025 “We will invest in carbon capture, methane reduction and other technologies to ensure Canadian oil and gas is not only produced responsibly, but is the most competitive in the world. All of us — governments and industry — need to get the Pathways project done.”— Tim Hodgson, natural resources minister, prepared remarks for a speech
• April 13, 2026: Carney Liberals achieve majority government
• June 25, 2026 “We will deepen co-operative federalism with initiatives [like] Alberta’s proposed carbon capture and pipeline to the West Coast. … With the implementation agreement around carbon capture, [the government is] working together, getting results for the citizens.”— Mark Carney, prime minister, news conference (not online)

The Trudeau government’s emissions cap proposal came together after the Oil Sands Alliance, a group of major producers formerly known as the Pathways Alliance, had publicized a project they originally claimed could cut 22 million tonnes of oilsands emissions by 2030, with carbon capture being a central element of their plans.

The natural resources minister at the time, Jonathan Wilkinson, portrayed the emissions cap as a way to ensure the industry did what it said it could do.

Oilsands companies fought the proposal. A group of them pushed the government to delay and weaken the emissions cap’s rules, saying they needed “flexible and cost-effective” rules and a “long lead time” to prepare. By 2024, the boss of one of the country’s largest oil and gas companies was openly calling for the idea to be abandoned. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith also came out against the proposal.

Last year, after Carney won power, Canadian oil and gas executives and lobby groups called on him to “unwind the past decade” of Trudeau-era policy altogether, killing not only the emissions cap but also other environmental rules. The prime minister has ticked off several boxes on their wishlist.

The Narwhal reached out to more than a dozen current and former government officials to ask them if they stood behind their comments about carbon capture today, knowing what they know now.

Minister Hodgson’s spokesperson forwarded the questions to Natural Resources Canada. A spokesperson for his department responded that technologies like carbon capture are “important tools in Canada’s broader climate toolbox of measures to reduce or remove emissions, while strengthening growth and security.”

Carbon capture and storage “holds great opportunity to advance climate competitiveness, and is an area where Canada can lead internationally and sell components and expertise in global markets,” they said in an email to The Narwhal. It offers a “practical path to reduce emissions, protect and create jobs, sustain economic growth and keep Canadian industries globally competitive.”

A spokesperson for Champagne declined to comment. The others did not respond.

The Narwhal also sent separate questions to Natural Resources Canada directly. Another spokesperson claimed Canada’s industrial carbon capture rates will rise in the coming years.

“While Canada has already captured and stored or used significant volumes of [carbon dioxide] the sector is growing, with new projects and infrastructure expected to come online as technology improves and evolves,” the spokesperson said in an email.

There’s a “growing list of potential projects across multiple industrial sectors” today, they said, and “these projects are expected to increase capture volumes over time.”

Canada doesn’t publish an official forward-looking estimate of carbon capture potential, the department said. And the spokesperson pointed to a number of challenges with carbon capture adoption. For one, the projects are “large, capital‑intensive and technically complex.”

Carbon capture is expensive. The Pathways proposal was initially estimated at $16.5 billion and is now pegged at between $20 billion and $30 billion, despite lowering the amount of emissions it is intended to capture. At times it has seemed like it could struggle to break even, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

The government is offering federal financial incentives for carbon capture, and Carney reversed a Trudeau-era ban on companies from accessing that incentive when they pump the captured carbon into wells to loosen up more oil for extraction.

Despite hitting record profits in recent years, oil companies have in the past largely resisted spending the billions of dollars necessary to build out carbon capture equipment across their large properties. Instead the industry spent years lobbying the government for lucrative public subsidies to install and run carbon capture systems.

Scaling up carbon capture and storage also requires building new pipelines and storage hubs. A Natural Resources Canada spokesperson said the technology continues to “evolve” and investors are looking for enough “market demand for low‑carbon products,” which the government believes has been bolstered with the Alberta deal.

Globally, the technology has underperformed, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development. One of Canada’s own flagship projects captured less carbon than initially thought. In 2022, more than 400 academics wrote an open letter to Canada saying carbon capture was “neither economically sound nor proven at scale,” despite decades of research.

Carbon capture used to secure social licence for pumping more oil

When it comes to techniques for keeping carbon out of the atmosphere, using carbon capture technology on industrial sources is only one approach.

Other types of technologies, collectively called carbon removal, can draw existing emissions from the atmosphere or store carbon permanently in other forms like rock.

There are 11 million tonnes worth of annual permanent carbon removal capacity in the planning stages in the country, according to Carbon Removal Canada, an independent non-profit. Those plans are for new projects such as direct air capture or carbon mineralization, but not industrial carbon capture.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that provides governments with climate science, has said carbon capture and carbon removal technologies will have to be part of the mix of techniques that countries use to slow the rise in planetary temperatures causing climate change.

It’s a point Steven Guilbeault, who served as another environment minister under Trudeau and helped develop the emissions cap proposal with Wilkinson, raised several times in Parliament. Canada needed to look at every possible technology that could help reduce emissions, he argued.

But the United Nations panel was also clear these kinds of technologies are not a substitute for a “substantial reduction in fossil fuel use,” rather something to be used alongside those efforts.

In an interview with The Narwhal, Guilbeault said Canadian politicians have often misunderstood the difference, seeing carbon capture as “a way to continue pumping oil and gas in Canada.”

“It’s a technology we will need, but it’s not in lieu of reducing emissions, and unfortunately it seems that a lot of people haven’t understood that,” he said.

The technology “is a very convenient, theoretical, technical fix to a larger problem,” Guilbeault said. “We humans tend to look for easy fixes, sometimes, to complex problems.”

Evidence also suggests carbon capture has been popularized by the oil and gas industry to shield itself from criticism. In 2022, a U.S. Congressional probe found oil companies were talking about carbon capture publicly as a way to mitigate their climate impact, but internally were discussing it as a way to secure “social licence” to continue producing fossil fuels.

In June, the investigative outlets ProPublica and Drilled published evidence the oil company BP helped shape an academic paper that oversold carbon capture’s readiness, while the oil and gas industry funded research at universities that boosted the technology.

Guilbeault said he has “always been skeptical” of the oil industry’s carbon capture proposal in Alberta.

His skepticism is shared by former oilsands executive and former member of Parliament Martha Hall Findlay, who helped develop the industry’s initial Pathways carbon capture proposal. She now argues Canada should “postpone” the project and focus on other priorities.

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is also skeptical of Carney’s plan.

A former Harper government minister of democratic reform, and employment and social development, Poilievre has supported subsidizing carbon capture in the oil and gas industry in the past. In 2022, shortly after becoming leader, he said the Canadian energy industry was “leading in the world” on carbon capture, and accused the Trudeau government of being “slow to support it and insufficient in that support.”

In 2023 he asked, “Why do we not use technology instead of taxes to fight climate change? Why do we not support our energy sector in pumping the carbon back into the ground through carbon capture and storage?”

More recently, Poilievre has criticized Carney’s deal with Alberta for committing billions of dollars to a “money-losing carbon capture project that has never been proven anywhere.”

Asked by The Narwhal why he’s soured on support for carbon capture, Poilievre said he only sees value if it’s used to extract more oil.

“When you pump carbon back in the ground and pressurize the geology, and you can bring up more oil, they can then go out and make the world a better place,” he said.

“The other is just pumping air into the ground and getting nothing in return. … How’s it going to make money?”

Updated on July 22, 2026, at 11:48 a.m. ET: This story was updated to include the latest figure for 2007 oilsands emissions from the national inventory report. While a report from Alberta published in 2008 put the figure at 26 million tonnes, the national inventory report has recalculated historical emissions figures with updated methodology and additional data, putting it at 41 million tonnes of emissions.

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.