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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B.C. election platforms on Indigenous Rights and DRIPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting lands and waters in B.C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Energy, electrification and renewables

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact check: Has DRIPA always been controversial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact check: Does DRIPA create uncertainty for industry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With Los Angeles ablaze, videos of “Super Scooper” water bombers from Canada have gone viral, showing the aircrafts swallowing up thousands of litres of seawater and dumping it on the wildfires. 

Water bombers aren’t the only support Canada has sent to battle the raging fires that have annihilated parts of Los Angeles, killed at least 25 people and forced more than 100,000 to leave their homes, or what’s left of them. Alberta and British Columbia have sent firefighting teams, while Ontario and the Canadian Armed Forces and Coast Guard are officially on standby. For Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, it’s an example of “neighbours helping neighbors.”

In Ottawa, the current Liberal government has thrown its support behind a number of cross-border collaborations to address the impacts of climate change. That includes International Development Minister Ahmed Hussen, who works at a very niche intersection: environment, development and aid. 

Hussen is no stranger to complicated intersections. The Toronto-area MP and former lawyer moved to Canada as a refugee from Somalia when he was a child, to eventually become the first Somali-Canadian elected to Parliament.

Elected in 2015 when the Liberals swept to power, Hussen was first appointed to cabinet in 2017 as the minister for immigration, refugees and citizenship, where he made headlines battling Ontario Premier Doug Ford over the treatment of asylum seekers at the Canada-U.S. border. He has also been minister of families, children and social development before becoming minister of housing, diversity and inclusion — where he garnered some criticism for owning a rental property.

Hussen’s latest role is becoming even more complicated as domestic needs overlap with global ones.

Last year was the hottest year on record according to Environment and Climate Change Canada and the World Meteorological Association. And those California fires? Those were larger and hotter as a result of planet-warming fossil fuel pollution, too. As the world heats up, deadly weather events like the California fires are becoming more common at home and abroad. And the last few years have seen several examples of armed conflict having devastating impacts on land, water and wildlife. 

Hussen believes complicated problems can have straightforward solutions if everyone pulls together. This week, for example, Hussen’s office told The Narwhal the situation in California is an example of how every country needs to both address climate change locally and collaborate globally. It was the same point the minister made during an interview in his office in Ottawa in October — months after B.C. fires had also warranted a global response.

“We find we send firefighters to other countries when they have forest fires. They do the same for us when we have forest fires,” he said. “So both in the solutions, and the mitigation, and the response — without serious and consistent collaboration across borders, we’re not going to be able to tackle climate change effectively.”

But as the failure to achieve significant global emissions reductions has shown so far, international co-operation on climate action has been no easy feat. And it’s made more challenging as rich nations, some of which have historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas pollution, are failing in their obligation to provide adequate funding to protect poorer countries from a world that’s becoming more dangerous as a result of heat-trapping emissions.

That’s where Hussen says Canada comes in. Since 2023, he has travelled across the Global South to connect Canada’s aid work to the climate emergency. From working with Vietnam on carbon pollution pricing, to helping farmers in Lebanon become more resilient to droughts to providing food, water, medicine and education in climate-vulnerable Sudan, Hussen believes working on tough situations abroad has payback at home, he told The Narwhal. 

The Narwhal sought to understand the impact and challenges of Canada’s efforts to support climate action abroad in the best and worst of times. It also dove into the future of these efforts, as Canada heads towards a federal election this year — putting foreign aid and global climate efforts up for debate.

How the climate crisis and global conflicts fuel each other 

Visiting the international development minister in his office these days means ducking under scaffolding, and caution tape, as Ottawa’s foreign affairs headquarters undergoes a complete retrofit. 

The permanent construction site that is the office for Canada’s diplomats feels like a metaphor for international development: it is always a work in progress. According to the minister, that never-ending work includes Canada’s efforts to fight climate change and its devastating effects outside our nation’s borders. 

When The Narwhal met him, Hussen had just returned from a trip to the United Arab Emirates, where he visited a Red Cross facility holding Canadian aid supplies for the Gaza Strip and met with recent evacuees from Lebanon. 

The conversation with Hussen took place around the first anniversary of the war in Gaza, which began in October 2023 when the Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an attack on Israel that killed approximately 1,200 people. Since then, more than 45,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli warfare, which was labelled “consistent with genocide” in a United Nations special committee report. Israel and Hamas reached a tentative ceasefire agreement just this week.

The UN has documented the war’s devastating environmental impact. Two-thirds of Gaza’s clean water and sanitation infrastructure was destroyed, with much of the remaining water supply polluted by sewage and debris. A satellite analysis by the Guardian last March also found nearly half of the territory’s tree cover and farmland have been destroyed by Israeli strikes. The Israel Defense Forces told the Guardian it follows international law, attempts to limit damage to the environment, “does not intentionally harm agricultural land” and seeks “to prevent environmental impact absent operational necessity.”

Researchers have called the situation in Gaza an “ecocide” that could have long-term impacts on the region’s farmland, air, water and biodiversity.  

“I haven’t heard that term being used. It’s the first time I’m hearing it,” Hussen told The Narwhal. “Obviously, the conflict is not just impacting people, it’s impacting the environment,” which he added is “very concerning.” 

There are many ways environmental challenges and conflict can intersect and inflame each other. Military action results in massive emissions: for example, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been lamented for its effects on birds and other animals in the latter country’s eight biosphere reserves. At the same time, climate change can trigger conflict by creating societal tensions over the loss of homes, land, livelihoods and natural resources.

“In some cases, regional conflicts emanate from scarcity of water as a result of climate change,” Hussen said. A recent example is the 2011 war in Syria, which occurred after a historic drought linked to changing rainfall patterns brought on by climate change, which destroyed food and water resources, pushing people into desperate situations. 

“Droughts and dry conditions are exacerbating existing conflicts over natural resources, including access to water, which is why I think it’s more important than ever that we think about the importance of access to clean drinking water for communities,” Hussen said. That’s why, he added, since 2000, Canada has given more than $1.5 billion for clean water access and infrastructure around the world. 

While the focus of The Narwhal’s discussion with Hussen was global, it cannot be ignored that clean water is an issue in Canada, too. There are still 31 long-term drinking water advisories in effect across 29 Indigenous communities, as of November 2024. Since the Liberals took power, they have lifted 147 advisories, but work remains — whether for this government or a new one.

Hussen said the government has spent billions addressing First Nations’ clean water issues and has cleared almost three-quarters of the advisories. He “strongly disagreed” with commentators who argue the government’s approach at home has failed. 

The international picture is more complicated, he said, as it involves working through partnerships with other governments and local communities. And conflicts are making it harder to secure access to clean water in several places, he added.

Last July, for example, a large water reservoir called “Canada Well” in a Gaza district was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike. Though the reservoir was funded by the United Nations and Japan and managed by the Red Cross, Hussen called for an investigation into the matter. The Israeli military said it would look into the situation. As of October, results had yet to be shared with the Canadian government, Hussen said. Soon after the airstrike, Oxfam condemned the killing by Israeli airstrikes of four of its engineers who were in northern Gaza to repair water infrastructure. 

“As a government, we have used every possible opportunity to condemn the destruction of water infrastructure. We have used every possible opportunity, publicly and privately, to advocate for the protection of humanitarian workers,” he said. 

“Of course, our commitment to environmental protection extends to Israel and Gaza and Lebanon, and anywhere where there’s a conflict.” 

With the anticipated ceasefire for Jan. 19 expected to remove blockades that prevented critical aid from reaching parts of Gaza, a Canadian government official told The Narwhal it will be looking at how Canada can help rebuild and remediate some of the environmental damage caused by the war.

The future of foreign aid uncertain in Canada

Much of what Hussen lists as important work hasn’t made headlines, but has, he says, had huge ripple effects in communities around the world. Beyond conflict-specific aid, disaster response and international firefighting exchanges, Canada has contributed financially to climate projects in developing countries, and made efforts to tackle plastic pollution abroad. (“If we don’t tackle plastic pollution at the source, it’s going to wash up to our shores,” he says.)

Canada’s ability to take such measures could be under threat, Hussen said, suggesting Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is prepared to “abandon the fight” against climate change entirely — including international disaster response.

Poilievre hasn’t spoken publicly about his stance on international aid for climate-related projects and disaster response, and his office didn’t respond to questions sent by The Narwhal. He has vowed to cut “wasteful foreign aid,” saying some of the money would be better spent on the military, so as not to rely on “Joe Biden or Donald Trump to protect Canada,” but has not detailed exactly how the balance would shift.

The Conservative leader was a minister in the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, which folded the Canadian International Development Agency into Canada’s Global Affairs department in 2013. The Harper government claimed the agency spent most of its money inefficiently on bureaucracy, but aid organizations said the move risked politicizing humanitarian assistance. The following year, the Liberals accused the Conservatives of withholding foreign aid after $125 million was left unspent and returned to the Finance department.

What is clear is that a Poilievre government would take a very different approach to climate and conservation from the Trudeau government. He is vowing to make the 2025 federal race an “axe the tax” election, scrapping consumer carbon pricing and several other domestic environmental policies. Instead, he says, he will fight climate change with “technology not taxes” but has not released a detailed climate plan.

Poilievre and the Conservatives say the Liberals have wasted public money by spending too much on what they call “corporate welfare,” some of it tied to failed clean initiatives. An example they frequently cite is the $1-billion green technology foundation Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which the government ended after a scathing report from the auditor general found numerous conflicts of interest. 

But for Hussen, choosing between spending money domestically and internationally is a “fake choice.”

“We have a global responsibility to be there for humanity, as well as being there for Canadians,” he said. “You can do both. Countries that are advanced and wealthy are in the position to do both.”

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 2024 U.S. presidential election campaign is in the homestretch and results in the Great Lakes states of Michigan and Wisconsin could determine the winner. Vice-President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump covet the electors in both states and polling indicates they could go either way.

Great Lakes Now selected three key topics — Great Lakes restoration, Line 5 and groundwater — and asked veteran policy experts Rob Sisson and Lana Pollack for their views on how a Harris or Trump presidency may deal with them.

Sisson, a Republican, is a former mayor of Sturgis, Mich., and previously served as U.S. Chair of the International Joint Commission, the U.S.-Canada agency that advises the two governments on Great Lakes issues. Sisson currently lives in Montana.

Pollack, a Democrat, was president of the non-profit Michigan Environmental Council for 12 years and also served on the International Joint Commission as the U.S. Chair. Pollack resides in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Sisson and Pollack were interviewed and recorded over the phone. Their words have been transcribed and edited for length and clarity.

Great Lakes Now: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative action plan has been the centerpiece of the federal government’s Great Lakes interest since 2010, funded with approximately US$350 million annually, according to its site.

As president, Donald Trump proposed eliminating the initiative’s funding, but was overruled by congress. President Joe Biden continued the program, including an additional billion dollars for toxic site clean-up. What’s ahead for the restoration initiative from both candidates?

Rob Sisson: The Great Lakes, if a separate entity, would be the sixth largest economy in the world and is represented by a large contingent of bi-partisan legislators who will safeguard the program and funding for it.

In March, I had the opportunity to have a one-on-one conversation with V.P. candidate J.D. Vance. I was very impressed with his knowledge of the issues and he said that he wants to be known as one of the great champions of the Great Lakes. Whether he’s in the senate or vice-president, I think he will offer great leadership from the Republican side of the aisle on Great Lakes restoration going forward.

I would expect a Harris administration to continue the Biden programming and also to follow the lead of the Great Lakes legislators.

Lana Pollack: The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has enough bi-partisan support as has been shown over the last 15 years that I would expect it will be continued at that funding level. Perhaps a Harris administration would be more generous than a Trump administration. But, I expect the bi-partisan support to continue largely in the format it is because there’s been a good outcome.

The program has such an impact on the people who live in these districts that in most years we’ve seen bi-partisan support in sponsorship coming out of Ohio and Michigan. There’s not a lot that Ohio and Michigan agree upon, in this we do. Lake Michigan, Lake Erie and the Great Lakes are important to everybody. That gets recognized in this stellar, longstanding and still needed approach to the Great Lakes.

The Line 5 oil pipeline that traverses the Straits of Mackinac has been in the spotlight since 2011. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have tried to shut it down to no avail. Anti-pipeline activists have taken their case to the Biden administration including Energy Secretary and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, without success.

How are Harris and Trump likely to view Line 5?

RS: During my time on the International Joint Commission and holding public hearings on the Great Lakes, Line 5 was probably the number one issue that people brought to us.

It is outside [the International Joint Commission]’s purview and area of responsibility because of a treaty between the U.S. and Canada regarding pipelines. I do not see either administration changing the current course.

LP: I would see those two administrations going in polar opposite directions. I’d wish that if there would be a Trump administration, it would be concerned with the health of the Great Lakes. But at the presidential level, I don’t see anything at all in his record that would indicate any concern or awareness of the dangers posed by an ever-aging pipeline. I expect with confidence that a Harris administration would recognize the threat to the Great Lakes posed by Line 5 and would be a source of support frankly, in two places.

By providing support for the state of Michigan to be able to exercise its legitimate authority to protect the lakes as stipulated in the treaty of 1977. It has language that is very clear that Michigan has authority when it comes to the clear environmental threat to the lakes which this poses.

The second thing is to address the issue through the state department and the administration has great interest and control over state department policies, given the existing laws, treaties and understandings. Canada has been grossly violative of the language and the spirit of the treaty of 1977. That needs to be addressed at the highest levels from the White House and from the Department of State — and  I expect a Harris administration to recognize that and to direct the state department to be consistent with the agreements, treaties and laws.

As a former chair of the U.S. section of the [commission], I have some familiarity with the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Canada would be apoplectic if the U.S. were to interfere in a similar way in the authority of the province of Ontario that is clearly stipulated under Canadian law.

Protection of wetlands and groundwater depletions could be ripe for federal intervention. Both are threatened and stewardship and regulation of them is muddled. For example, in 2023 the Supreme Court issued a wetland ruling in an effort to create a tighter definition of wetlands that are subject to federal regulation. But, there are still grey areas subject to interpretation.

The threat facing groundwater screams for someone to be in charge. Will either a Harris or Trump administration address the issues affecting them, or are they too far down a presidential priority list?

RS: I don’t know if either Trump or Harris would take a leadership role but experts in the various agencies will begin bubbling groundwater and aquifers to the surface in terms of policy and science.

More attention needs to be paid to the science of groundwater. We need to increase the research and scientific knowledge about groundwater in the Great Lakes and everywhere. There’s a great void, science can step in and there needs to be an infusion of investment.

LP: Again, I believe there would be a sharp difference between a Trump and Harris administration. Sadly, I have zero expectations that Trump would indicate any concern for a resource like groundwater that is critical but unseen. I would expect unfortunately nothing by way of help to protect groundwater which has accumulated over thousands of years and can be depleted in a very short period of time, never to be replenished in the foreseeable future.

With a Harris administration, I would have hope and expectation that with sufficient well-organized advocacy, education and presentation of the science and the economics of the issue, there could be some progress. Groundwater is the forsaken stepchild of the environmental movement, in part because it is out of sight. In so far as the public is aware of environmental issues, it is invariably supportive. When they’re not aware and informed it makes it easy for the resource to be exploited. It stands before the environmental community to organize and focus our resources to get the government at every level to take action.

What have we missed? Other Great Lakes issues that should garner the attention of the new president or the president’s agency heads?

RS:  Along the U.S.-Canada transboundary there are 10 aquifers shared by the two countries. It would behoove the two governments to start leaning on the [International Joint Commission] to create or add that research and science portfolio to its existing work along the transboundary including the Great Lakes. That would compel experts from local, state and federal agencies to collaborate to build a common understanding of groundwater science and data, and monitor it going forward.

Over the 120-year history of the boundary waters treaty the focus has always been on surface water. We now know that groundwater has much more to do with surface water than we’ve previously understood. The State Department is the agency that would drive the initiative.

And the next president should use the gravitas of the presidency to support the Great Lakes Science Plan, a forward looking plan for resources to transform science efforts over the next generation.

The plan will focus on developing young scientists in the Great Lakes basin and will incorporate “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” and socioeconomic perspectives, to offer more robust data about Great Lakes water quality and its impacts. The more we can know about how the Great Lakes may change in the future, the better prepared we will be to face those challenges.

The new president’s endorsement of the plan would send a message on the importance of Great Lakes science.

LP: As to Line 5, the probability of a failure is too great to ignore. A break will at some point come, and then it will be too late to avoid serious damage to the Great Lakes. A break in the line would happen very quickly. We wouldn’t have a chance to see a slow drip and then decide that we should do something about it.

Letting Canada, our neighbor, with whom we share these waters, and who should know better, determine the fate of Line 5 and the Great Lakes, is unwise to the point of recklessness.

Having served for nine years as the U.S. Section Chair of the [International Joint Commission], I know something of Canada’s politics. I know what the tar sands of Alberta mean to the politics of that country, whether governed by the Liberal or Conservative parties. While there is a growing awareness in Canada of the risks to the Lakes we share, we’re not seeing that awareness reflected in government policies, at least not yet. The next U.S. president needs to assert U.S. options to address Line 5, including support for Michigan’s authority to shut it down under the provisions of the 1977 treaty concerning transit pipelines.This story was originally published in Great Lakes Now on Oct. 14, 2024.

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.

B.C. ministers have told Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs that the provincial government wants to slow down some reconciliation efforts due to a polarized political climate in the lead-up to the October election, according to a recording of a phone call reviewed by The Narwhal.

On a recent call, B.C. ministers acknowledged the government is concerned about public backlash to recent Indigenous Rights announcements in the lead-up to the October provincial election.

“We are really concerned about the significant political debate around the Haida Act and Land Act, and the tone of the conversation that is taking place in B.C., and the risk is really high leading into the election,” Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Josie Osborne said in a recording of a call between B.C. ministers and Gitanyow representatives, which took place on June 20. The recording was reviewed by The Narwhal and quoted in a press release from the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs.

Minister of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship Nathan Cullen mentioned the fact Conservative leader John Rustad said he may “tear up” Indigenous Rights legislation if elected, and expressed concern about giving “opponents to reconciliation a stick to smash us around the head with in the next few months.”

“I have no interest in rights and title and reconciliation just being a political football in the midst of a provincial campaign like they were 20 years ago,” he said.

Cullen said political debate in B.C. is tainted with “toxicity” and he fears it getting worse.

Cullen and Osborne appear to be referring to a frenzy of criticism from the BC Conservatives in recent months, and perhaps also BC United, as both parties have zeroed in on blasting several Indigenous Rights announcements related to land use and natural resources — relying on what many observers have identified as divisive, racist and misleading rhetoric. 

Naxginkw, or Tara Marsden, who works with the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, was on a call that included Cullen and Osborne when they informed her that cabinet was putting conservation plans on hold, partly due to political backlash to recent announcements around Indigenous Rights. The call also included deputy minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Shannon Baskerville, deputy ministers of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship Lori Halls and David Muter, assistant deputy minister of Energy and Mines Tania Demchuk and Don Bain, deputy chief of staff for the Premier’s Office. 

According to Marsden, the Chiefs and province had planned to make an announcement earlier this year about temporarily pausing new mineral claims in the Medizian watershed in northern B.C., and she was dismayed to hear that the interim protections were not going to be put in place before the election as expected. 

Marsden said it seems the plans are being put on hold for “political advantage,” and fears the NDP is bending to the backlash from the Conservatives and BC United on several Indigenous Rights announcements.

“They’re really pandering to that racism in B.C. in the face of the Haida Act and the Lands Act changes,” she said.

Conservative leader John Rustad came out hard against proposed Lands Act amendments to recognize Indigenous Rights in February. The amendments were meant to create an option for First Nations and the province to negotiate agreements on consent over Crown lands in order to avoid costly litigation — but Rustad framed the amendments as an “assault” on private land rights. Just a few weeks later, the NDP government backtracked on the amendments in the face of the inflamed response. 

Osborne’s quote suggests the government is weighing how announcements focused on Indigenous Rights recognition and land management may stoke further political backlash with less than three months to go until the October provincial election.

Osborne did not respond directly to questions about her quote referring to the election. She instead sent a statement about still being committed to reforming mining claims in the province. Cullen did not respond to questions by publication time.

Mineral claims require First Nations consultation, B.C. Supreme Court rules

Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Murray Rankin told The Narwhal in a statement “Mr. Rustad and Mr. Falcon are still focused on dividing communities and spreading misinformation, rather than bringing people together to find solutions that work better for people, communities and the economy.”

“The province welcomes genuine questions about how agreements will work and who they will impact. But we all agree — hate speech has no place whatsoever in British Columbia’s political or public discourse.  Sometimes those concerns are based on a misunderstanding or reading something someone else shared that wasn’t true. It is deeply unfortunate that a small minority have gone to extremes to mislead people about what reconciliation and specific agreements mean — and have sought to divide communities.”

‘Fear mongering’ and ‘legal blindness’ around Indigenous Rights legislation

Rankin pointed out that when the Haida agreement was announced in April, Rustad stood in the house and said “the path to reconciliation is of utmost importance for all British Columbians” and “we need to discover title … this is a path that needs to be done.” 

“But less than 24 hours later he said it is ‘a bad deal for every day, hardworking British Columbians including First Nations,’” Rankin said.

Rustad claimed the NDP is “misleading” the public around the Haida title agreement and says it threatens private property owners, even though the agreement addresses private property. 

Rustad also called plans for new protected areas “nonsense” and said he would scrap legislation recognizing Indigenous Rights, even though he voted in favour of it in 2019. (The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, colloquially referred to as DRIPA, aims to bring B.C. laws into alignment with the landmark United Nations framework for recognizing Indigenous rights.) Recently, he has championed “economic reconciliation,” saying that Indigenous people should “add to the economic pie to make sure that First Nations can prosper from the land.”

BC United Leader Kevin Falcon criticized a dock management plan with the shíshálh Nation, framing the plan as contrary to community and industry voices and claiming it “infringes on the property rights of coastal residents”. After the province announced the expansion of the Klinse-Za / Twin Sisters park in partnership with West Moberly First Nations and Saulteau First Nations — the biggest protected area announcement in a decade — Falcon decried the park as lacking “public consultation.”

Cullen did denounce misinformation around proposed changes to the Lands Act at a news conference in February, but the government had already cancelled the amendments in the face of backlash. Cullen called the misinformation “distasteful, very unfortunate and in fact quite damaging.” He acknowledged the government’s lack of communication was partly to blame for misunderstandings around the amendments.

West Moberly First Nations released a statement calling out “racist misinformation” about the Lands Act amendments, and said Treaty 8 members had faced “increased hostility and racist backlash” due to misinformation. The statement called the government’s choice to pause the changes “disheartening.” 

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs called the Conservatives and BC United’s rhetoric a “shameless opportunity for partisan political gain.”

These claims have been called out as “fear mongering” by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders as they come up. First Nations and experts are sharing details about what the agreements really include and pointing out the damage of racially charged rhetoric around inherent Indigenous Rights. 

The narrative that recognizing Indigenous Rights will threaten non-Indigenous people is not a new one — it’s a trope that’s been deployed many times before and never quite goes away.

Merle Alexander, a lawyer with Miller Titerle + Company, said there has been continual fear mongering from politicians and lawyers who are associated with industry around legislation aligning with Indigenous Rights, such as the Environmental Assessment Act, the Lands Act, the Haida Act and the Mineral Tenure Act. He said they’re stoking the frenzied public discourse by playing to concerns and ignorance as to whether these changes undermine fee simple property.

All these things are “legally and factually incorrect and require a very high degree of legal blindness,” he said.

For example, he said, some lawyers are raising doubts in media interviews and op-eds that private land may be affected by the Haida Act — but the act “completely and expressly” says title recognition will not affect fee simple land.

“The truth is, they know this. They can read,” Alexander said. 

“Anybody could read through the Haida Agreement and see these very particular clauses about fee simple land and know that you’re protected on it. They’re knowingly creating a false narrative.”

‘Pandering to that racism in B.C.’

It’s against this backdrop that the province and First Nations were set to announce no-registration zones for mineral claims as interim protections for several areas, including the Mezidian in Gitanyow territory.

The provincial government is set to change the mineral tenure act by March 2025 due to the 2023 Gitxaala v. British Columbia decision. The Gitxaala Nation and Ehattesahet First Nation argued the mineral tenure system violates the Crown’s duty to consult, which previously allowed almost anyone to stake a mineral claim in First Nations territory without the duty to consult them. The court ruled in their favour and the government is obliged to update the mineral claims system to include consultation.

But the fact the NDP government walked back on creating a no-registration reserve in the Mezidian leads Marsden to think the NDP government is trying to “play centre and not be so much to the left,” but as a result, “They’re really pandering to that racism in B.C.,” which suggests to her that the government sees Indigenous Rights as “a principle that can be easily ignored or watered down for the sake of political advantage.” 

Rankin told The Narwhal in a statement “since 2017 we have been working to move out of the courts and instead to sit down together as neighbours, to address our shared needs and aspirations.”

“For years, John Rustad and Kevin Falcon repeatedly fought First Nations in court, and they repeatedly lost. British Columbians know that this approach has caused delays and uncertainty for people and businesses,” he said.

But Marsden points out that in the Gitxaala case the province was making the argument there was no duty to consult for mineral claims — and to her, that’s more of the same status quo.

Marsden said she knows it’s hard for politicians to push back on controversial issues with voters, but that she’s seen it happen and wants to see the current government push back harder against misinformation around Indigenous Rights.

Meanwhile, the nation is left to hope the next government will meet them back at the table.

“We all have to wait until a new government is formed, and maybe that new government still thinks this [plan] is a good idea. Or maybe that government says, ‘Well, let’s start from scratch and do all of that work that you did for three years over again,’” Marsden said.

“Even if it’s an NDP future government, they can’t commit them to anything,” she said. “Commitments shift during the campaign, there’s a new cabinet, new everything. … We are sort of back to square one when it comes to provincial protection [of the Mezidian].”

West Moberly First Nations knew to expect ‘hostile responses’ before announcing park expansion

In recent months, since Eby’s government walked back its Lands Act amendments in February, support for the Conservatives has gathered momentum while BC United tries to remain a contender for fourth place, according to a recent poll. A few significant announcements around Indigenous conservation were announced with no press events, a departure from the norm that suggests a government on guard against political backlash. 

For example, in June, B.C. reached an agreement to protect vast swaths of old-growth forest in Clayoquot Sound with Ahousaht and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations and Nature United. Clayoquot Sound is world-famous for its ancient old-growth forests and the protests to protect them from logging, which set the record as the largest act of civil disobedience in Canada’s history in 1994. That title was later taken by the Fairy Creek old-growth protests in 2021, also on Vancouver Island. These blockades created public pressure for B.C. to create its old-growth strategy. 

Despite all the history and notoriety connected to the region, there was no media advisory, no press conference and hardly a mention on government social media. In an emailed statement, the government said that it had been unable to coordinate with the First Nations for an event. 

Similarly, B.C. spent decades working on expanding the Klinse-Za / Twin Sisters Park with West Moberly First Nations, Saulteau First Nations and the federal government. This expansion was the largest protected area announcement in a decade, but the province chose to only release the press release locally in northern B.C. and forgo a press conference. This park was subsequently met with pushback from BC United. The community of Chetwynd also claimed it was not consulted.

The Narwhal asked about the communications strategy around these announcements, and Rankin told The Narwhal, “The province is proud to collaborate on announcements with First Nations, and we make decisions about how best to celebrate these achievements in partnership with Nations to ensure they are meaningful for local communities and people, while respecting local needs and capacity.”

He pointed to the recent announcements of the purchase of the terminal property in Nanaimo with Snuneymuxw First Nation, and the initialing of proposed treaties with the Kitselas and Kitsumkalum Nations as examples.

Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nations told The Narwhal ahead of the Klinse-Za announcement he knew there would be pushback from conservative-leaning commentators due to the months of rhetoric leading up to it.

“We’re expecting pretty hostile responses,” he said. He similarly saw racist backlash when the nations announced a caribou recovery plan in 2019. 

“It was just fear mongering and lifting themselves up at the expense of Indigenous people, which is sad. I can’t believe that kind of stuff is still going on these days,” Willson said. “The racial profiling is actually sickening. And it’s at the expense of our people … In school, in the line at the grocery store, people are saying pretty ignorant things.”

He said some people get defensive at the suggestion of their access to land being limited, but when it comes to First Nations, “it’s fine when our rights are being trampled.”

He also said the NDP could be doing more to combat misinformation, pointing to how the party immediately backtracked on Lands Acts amendments in the face of criticism.

“They withdrew it right away, they didn’t spend any time explaining what was going out — they looked like they got caught doing something bad, and that’s not what that was.”

Is reconciliation on voters’ minds?

Alexander said there’s a false assumption out here Indigenous people are “getting too much” that Rustad knows well as a former minister of Indigenous relations and “this racist assumption is being exploited for votes.” 

“It’s really egregious,” he said. “They’re taking an anti-human rights perspective to gain political momentum. … It’s not the first time [a party] has chosen to isolate a particular minority and use it for political gain.”

Still, he’s not sure if singling out First Nations is producing viable success for the Conservatives or United — but it seems to have affected bureaucracy in the province and consequently “slowed down reconciliation.” 

“An incumbent is always a little more cautious to find themselves in a controversy during an election cycle. So who they’ve been able to probably more directly impact is the NDP,” he said. 

But Alexander thinks the average non-Indigenous voter in British Columbia is more occupied with things like housing and health — a belief backed up by recent polling — and most people probably just want to know we’re moving “slowly, progressively” towards reconciliation, which he thinks matches what’s really happening. To Alexander, progress on the action plan to align legislation with the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples has been quite slow, even while some critics frame the changes as happening too fast.

“The real issue is that reconciliation is being politicized right now, and [the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act] is the lightning rod for that,” he said.

SȾHENEP, or Adam Olsen, outgoing Green representative for Saanich North and the Islands, said the NDP seems to be trying to “defend the lead” — a sports analogy that means avoiding risk because a team is already winning.

“I don’t think that’s the right approach with this,” he said. “The NDP need to sharpen their game up as well. They’ve sent us in a remarkably better direction on Indigenous Rights. … There should be huge amounts of gratitude… But I think it’s a project that needs to be properly taken care of.”

He agreed the NDP government has not always kept the public as informed as it could have when it comes to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. But he also said denying Aboriginal title is no longer an option. Government has to negotiate with First Nations or fight in the courts — “there is no third option here,” he said. 

Pulling out of negotiations with First Nations lacks “honest discussion about the legal landscape” in B.C., Olsen said, arguing fighting First Nations is much more costly to the taxpayer because court cases are long, expensive and grueling. 

In contrast, Olsen said that pursuing negotiations means understanding the legal aspects of title. He believes the NDP sees “the potential opportunity of unlocking friendship and cooperation as opposed to outrage and frustration. That’s really the choice British Columbians have when it comes down to it.”

— With files from Shannon Waters

Updated on July 31, 2024 at 3:55 p.m PT: This story has been updated to correct the name of the Environmental Assessment Act, which was previously written as Environmental Systems Act.

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.

When Green Party MLA Adam Olsen rose in the B.C. legislature in mid-May to grill the BC NDP government over its failure to protect wild salmon, he knew it was the last time he would pose questions directly to the government as an MLA.

“My question is to the premier,” Olsen said. “When he decides to replace that mural out there in that [B.C. legislature] rotunda, the wild Pacific salmon mural, will he replace it with a fracking rig and the massive welded pipes or a hellscape of wildfires and hungry, thirsty British Columbians?”

“Will the premier lease that space out there depicting the fishing industry to the fossil fuel lobbyists for advertising so that the Minister of Energy can be very clear who’s calling the shots?” Olsen continued.

During his seven years as MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, Olsen, a member of Tsartlip First Nation, developed a reputation as a fiery and unflinching critic of the government. His final questions in the legislature were no exception. In late June, Olsen announced he will not be seeking re-election when B.C. voters go to the polls this fall, citing the impacts of his job as an MLA on his ability to spend time with his family, including his two children.

“It was not easy,” Olsen told The Narwhal of his decision. “But I’m glad to be on the other side of the announcement now and looking ahead.” Over the next few months, Olsen will serve as the BC Green Party’s campaign chair and help mentor its 2024 candidates.

Olsen’s exit comes at a pivotal moment for the Greens. It leaves party leader Sonia Furstenau as the only Green incumbent seeking re-election — and her political future is far from certain following her decision to run in Victoria-Beacon Hill, a riding where the Greens have come a distant second to the NDP since 2005. Furstenau said she made the decision to switch ridings for family reasons. Her move followed boundary changes to her Cowichan Valley riding, where she rose to notoriety by fighting the dumping of contaminated waste at a landfill near the water supply for the community of Shawnigan Lake.

“I consider it the greatest gift of the last seven years, my friendship and being able to work alongside Adam,” Furstenau said at Olsen’s June 25 announcement, describing him as “somebody who can speak from a place of integrity, a place of deep wisdom and, importantly, a place of service.” 

BC Greens’ voice in legislature ‘always appreciated’: Grand Chief Stewart Phillip 

For the past four years, Furstenau and Olsen have, for the most part, been the lone voices in the legislature holding the BC NDP to account for its environmental protection and climate action promises. They’ve delivered blistering critiques of the government’s failure to protect at-risk species such as spotted owls and what they perceive to be the BC NDP’s cozy relationship with the fossil fuel industry. In an interview, Olsen described the BC Greens as “the conscience in the legislature.”

Before the 2020 election, Olsen and Furstenau — along with former BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver — were partners with the BC NDP through an agreement that gave the minority NDP government enough votes in the legislature to govern. During the three years the agreement lasted, the Greens successfully pushed the BC NDP government to implement what became its signature climate action plan, change the rules for political donations and keep its election promise to ask the independent BC Utilities Commission for a fast-tracked economic review of the publicly funded Site C dam. (The review found the same amount of energy could be produced from a suite of renewables, including wind power — for about one-half the dam’s current $16-billion price tag.)

The Greens also clashed with the BC NDP over old-growth logging and energy issues encompassing everything from the decision to proceed with the Site C dam despite the findings of the review to greenlighting the province’s new carbon-intensive liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry and offering highly profitable oil and gas companies billions of dollars in subsidies. 

“Speaking from the perspective of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, we have all always appreciated their two voices in the legislature in terms of keeping the government’s feet to the fire,” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip told The Narwhal. (Phillip’s spouse, Joan Phillip, is the NDP MLA for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant.)

Olsen optimistic about future of BC Greens 

Olsen’s departure set off a flurry of speculation in political circles about what lies ahead for the BC Greens, including dire predictions for the party’s immediate political fortunes. None of it surprised Olsen, a two-term MLA.

“There have been [people] that have been predicting our demise for years,” Olsen said.

But there are signs the party’s situation is not as bleak as some — including Weaver, who predicted the party he once led is “finished” — have suggested. 

A Research Co. poll released hours ahead of Olsen’s announcement in June showed 15 per cent of decided voters in B.C. support the Green Party, an increase of three percentage points from May. It’s a level of support similar to what the party enjoyed in 2020. The poll put the Greens ahead of BC United (formerly the BC Liberals and the current official opposition), by three percentage points. According to the poll, the BC NDP are still in the lead but the BC Conservatives are closing in. 

“In terms of our momentum and electoral success, we are focused on what it takes to get Greens elected,” Furstenau said following the poll’s publication. “That doesn’t happen by accident, it takes a lot of hard work.”

With more than three months to go before voting day on Oct. 19, Olsen is optimistic about his party’s chances.

“There will be a point in time when every single person is sitting in the ballot box asking themselves a question: ‘Who best is going to represent me in the legislature?’ The BC Greens, our goal, is to give them somebody to vote for that represents and reflects the values that [Furstenau] and I have been working towards for the last seven years.”

Those include traditionally “green” values like protecting and preserving ecosystems, safeguarding what remains of B.C.’s rare old-growth forests, reining in destructive resource development and reducing carbon emissions and other pollution.

The BC NDP government’s failure to follow through on its campaign promise to enact a stand-alone law to protect at-risk species and its lack of progress protecting old-growth forests were among the last issues Olsen raised in the legislature.

“Decades of industrial logging have taken an immense toll on the ecosystems and communities, and this government’s response is rhetoric,” he said in mid-May during the second-last question period of the session. “When will [this] government fully fund the deferral process and provide compensation to First Nations that lose revenue as a result of the deferrals?” Olsen asked, referring to the old-growth deferral process that relies on agreement from First Nations — many of which make money and generate employment from logging activities on their traditional territories.

Research Co. principal Mario Cansenco said the BC Green Party will always appeal to a segment of B.C. voters.

“If you’re somebody who’s looking for action on the climate change file and you’re surrounded by all of these messages related to LNG development and maybe you don’t feel like [Premier David] Eby has been strong enough on that file, you might gravitate towards the Greens,” Cansenco said in an interview.

But while dissatisfaction with the BC NDP’s pro-LNG policies and lack of timely action on environmental issues like protecting old-growth forests and at-risk species may have given the Greens an opening with some voters in the past two elections, Cansenco said the rise of the BC Conservatives could make the 2024 vote a tougher competition.

“There are a bunch of voters who are deeply disenchanted with politics. … [They’re] not necessarily an environmentally friendly voter, but somebody who’s upset with the way things are going,” Cansenco said. “Now, that type of voter … might look at the BC Conservatives in the same way: they’re fresh and they’re different.”

For other voters, the BC Conservatives’ rapid rise and the corresponding decline of BC United’s electoral chances could make the Greens an appealing option. 

“I actually think that the current landscape could bode very well for the Greens,” former B.C. environment minister Mary Polak told The Narwhal. “The ordinary person is looking at this changing party landscape in British Columbia. I think that’s a recipe for a lot of voters to say, ‘Hmm, I can’t vote NDP … but I don’t know who all these yahoos are on the free enterprise side, so who am I going to vote for?’ ” Polak, a former BC Liberal MLA, said. “They might vote Green, especially if they know the local candidate.” 

It could be “one weird election,” Polak added.

Once aligned with the BC NDP, the Greens now criticize the government’s climate record

One of the biggest imprints the BC Greens have left on provincial policy is their contribution to the Clean BC plan. The plan launched in December 2018 with legislated targets to reduce B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030. By 2050, B.C.’s goal is to cut emissions by 80 per cent through policies aimed at boosting the use of electric vehicles and reducing emissions from industry, buildings and transportation.

Political strategist Jillian Oliver, who managed the BC Greens 2020 election campaign and Furstenau’s successful leadership bid following Weaver’s departure, called Clean BC the “crown jewel” of the NDP-Green alliance era.

“I don’t think we [could have had] Clean BC without the minority government,” Oliver told The Narwhal. “It’s so comprehensive and so difficult to unwind — even though the opposition parties are threatening to do that. I think it’s going to be very difficult to dismantle.”

But for Olsen, Clean BC’s shine has tarnished with time.

He said the BC NDP has used Clean BC “as a shield and as a sword” to defend policies that benefit polluters and deflect criticism by pointing to its co-development with the BC Greens. 

“The BC NDP have no legitimacy talking about climate action or their bold Clean BC plan,” Olsen added. “It’s ageing, it is out of date and it doesn’t consider all of the oil and gas and industry development that’s been encouraged and celebrated under the BC NDP.”

While the former BC Liberal government approved the LNG Canada project, Eby claimed the BC NDP government “delivered that project.” The LNG Canada production and export terminal near Kitimat is set to drive the biggest fracking boom in the province’s history, to supply enough gas to produce up to 14 million tonnes of LNG per year. In March 2023, Eby also gave the greenlight to Cedar LNG, the first Indigenous majority-owned LNG facility.

The Green caucus had input into all legislation introduced by the BC NDP government between September 2017 and May 2020 — and the power to topple the government by voting against the NDP in certain situations. They wielded significant, but often subtle, influence on the government’s agenda.

“What would have been the most influential is probably nothing that you would have seen — it would have been the absence of something,” Polak said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that would have, on a daily basis, affected the decision-making of the governing party.”

Polak served as government house leader for the BC Liberals during the minority government, a position that often placed her around a table with Furstenau, the BC Greens’ house leader, and cabinet minister Mike Farnworth, who was the NDP’s house leader during those years. Together, the three were responsible for planning and negotiating the day-to-day work of their parties in the legislature.

It was a marked departure from the previous decades, when only two political parties held seats in the legislature — forming the government and the official opposition — along with a smattering of independent MLAs. When Olsen and Furstenau were elected in 2017, joining Weaver in the legislature, it added a new layer of accountability, according to Evan Pivnick, who was chief of staff to Weaver during the minority government.

“There was unique accountability provided by BC Greens during that minority government, where three MLAs and seven staff were required to understand and provide support on every issue that passed through the legislature,” Pivnick said. “That provided an additional check that otherwise just doesn’t occur.”

Oliver said the Green Party caucus helped shift the tone of political debate.

“[They raised] the level of debate in the legislature and showed a contrast to the other opposition parties and the government, that it doesn’t need to be this sort of reductive political debate, that you can have a productive opposition that puts forward solutions, that is honest and isn’t just there to sort of play political theater,” she told The Narwhal.

Conversation about Indigenous Rights has become deeply politicized, Olsen says

Olsen said the passage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, known as DRIPA, was the high point of his time as an MLA.

B.C. was the first Canadian jurisdiction to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into law in 2019. Grand Chief Phillip, of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, said the province has remained ahead of the curve in acknowledging Indigenous Rights under the BC NDP.

“It’s the only jurisdiction that has been so progressive and so bold in knowing and understanding the essential need for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to be part of any and all governance in this country,” he said. 

In the years since the law was passed, Olsen has criticized the government for failing to live up to the act’s principles by supporting construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline over the objections of Wet’suwet’en First Nation Hereditary Chiefs and matriarchs. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination also issued a rebuke over the Coastal GasLink pipeline, calling for an immediate halt to construction until the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples was achieved.

In February 2020, opposition to the pipeline arrived at the B.C. legislature, where supporters of the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and matriarchs blockaded the building and demanded MLAs respect the hereditary leaders’ position.

“[Olsen] was forced to cross the line in front of a variety of Indigenous activists,” Pivnick recalled. “He made a choice in advancing within the provincial government … the types of changes that moved us forward towards reconciliation.”

Phillip, who has a history of opposing fossil fuel projects in B.C. and was arrested for opposing the Trans Mountain pipeline in 2014, takes a more generous view of the BC NDP government’s record on Indigenous Rights. He told The Narwhal he “was perplexed at times” by Olsen’s forceful criticism of the government’s policies.

“One day we found ourselves cheering Adam Olsen’s performance in [the] B.C. legislature and the next day we were left scratching our heads, wondering where did that come from,” Phillip said. “Nonetheless, he made a difference. He was a powerful voice and he did defend and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples during his term and was well respected in the Indigenous world for the work that he accomplished.”

The political conversation about reconciliation and B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has shifted. The BC Conservatives, led by John Rustad, have called for the act’s repeal, claiming it is a threat to private property rights, a suggestion echoed by BC United leader Kevin Falcon. 

Both parties criticized the Haida Nation Recognition Act, which was passed this spring, recognizing Haida ownership over the lands of the Haida Gwaii archipelago. In his role as president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Phillip called on the BC Conservatives and BC United to “stop sowing the seeds of division through misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric.”

“There’s been so much work undertaken as a result of the space provided by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Supreme Court decisions like the Tsilhqot’in decision and major milestones such as the [Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s] 94 calls to action,” Phillip said. “We can’t afford to have all that sideswiped by a right-wing leadership that seeks to divide and destroy social institutions.”

Olsen said First Nations issues and Aboriginal Rights and Title issues have become politicized as the BC Conservatives try to wrestle away support from BC United and other parties. “I guess they feel one of the ways that they can attract that support is by taking increasingly racist positions about Indigenous people — or at the very least completely, completely void of the legal reality” in British Columbia.

What happens if the Greens disappear from the legislature?

If the BC Greens fail to elect any MLAs this fall, Pivnick said there will be a “real deficit of voices” in the B.C. legislature.

“The best governments that we see tend to come around at the times where we have some of the better oppositions. I don’t think anyone is served by there being perceptions of weak opposition.”

Phillip is optimistic a crop of newly elected BC NDP MLAs could push the party stalwarts on issues the BC Greens have historically championed.

“It will definitely represent a loss … but if those voices are gone, then it’s incumbent upon the NDP and I think we’re going to see that happen,” he said. 

In the absence of a Green caucus, the only opposition in the B.C. legislature would be from the centre-right and right of the political spectrum, leaving many environmental issues without scrutiny. “It’s going to be really easy for [the BC NDP] to let those issues fall by the wayside, because we know that there are mixed views within their caucus,” Oliver said of NDP MLAs’ views on the environment. 

“Without the Greens there, it makes it a lot easier for them to just say, ‘No, we’re going to fall on the side of our old habit,’ “ she said. “I think that’s a scary prospect, given how far we’ve come and how much pressure the Greens have put on them.”

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.

Surrounded by the lush tropical greenery of Winnipeg’s indoor gardens, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew reaffirmed his commitment to “turning a new leaf” as he introduced his inaugural cabinet, including a new minister of environment and climate change.

Tracy Schmidt, a rookie MLA representing the Winnipeg suburb constituency Rossmere, has been appointed to helm the department and oversee Crown corporation Efficiency Manitoba for the New Democratic government. Schmidt comes to the file with a background in labour law following a 10-year career with Canada Post.

At the end of his closing remarks detailing the NDP’s plan to revitalize health care and strengthen the provincial economy, Kinew used the event’s location — The Leaf at Winnipeg’s Assiniboine Park — to signal his government’s intent on climate change.

“In order for us to guarantee these opportunities for future generations we have to be responsible stewards of the land, of the water, of the air we breathe and we must take action to confront the existential crisis that is climate change,” he said.

“There could perhaps be no better reminder of these priorities than to have our event here, at The Leaf. So today, as a province, we are turning a new leaf over together.”

But following a campaign relatively devoid of climate commitments, the surprise appointment of a rookie member to a critical file — the second rookie in a row to hold the position — undercuts the promise to prioritize climate change and suggests a continuation of the status quo on environment issues.

Of Kinew’s 14-member cabinet, seven were assigned ministerial roles on files they previously followed as official critics, notably the postings of health, finance and justice, which align with the NDP’s platform priorities. Four of the new ministers, including Schmidt, are first-time MLAs.

Manitoba isn’t alone in navigating turnover and inexperience in climate department leadership. Ontario has had five climate ministers since former Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray retired from the post in 2017; Alberta’s environment ministry has been through a handful of restructurings — including a controversial decision to carve forestry, parks and tourism out of the environment department’s mandate last year — and cycled through three ministers since 2022. Saskatchewan’s current environment minister is a former police officer; Alberta’s worked in communications; New Brunswick’s was an elementary school principal.

By contrast, British Columbia’s environment minister George Heyman — who previously served as executive director of the Sierra Club’s B.C. chapter — has held the post since the NDP was elected in 2017. Heyman is the only current provincial environment minister with a background in environment and climate change prior to joining politics.

PCs had five environment ministers in the last seven years

Manitoba’s Progressive Conservatives cycled through five environment ministers during their seven years in government, none of whom had prior experience with climate or environment issues.

According to former NDP environment minister Gord Mackintosh, environmental experience isn’t a key qualification for the role. Mackintosh was appointed to the file during his fifth and final term in office under former premier Greg Selinger in 2012. Before entering politics nearly two decades earlier, Mackintosh had a background in environmental law, making him the last Manitoba environment minister with relevant experience prior to joining the legislature.

“I asked to be assigned the portfolio because I considered the work so profoundly important,” Mackintosh said in an interview. ​​“I’ve always considered the portfolio to be critical to our health and our economy.”

Mackintosh says it’s crucial an environment minister “be a listener and a convener, someone who respects science, empower advocates and stakeholders and understands Indigenous governance.”

But Mackintosh noted the rapid turnover in department leadership “can set back the work on some files,” pose a “daunting challenge to stakeholders” and undermine the department’s accountability.

The newly named department of environment and climate change (previously called the department of environment and climate, the department of conservation and water stewardship and the department of sustainability through its various iterations) suffered funding and staffing cuts through repeated restructuring, causing what’s been described as a “crisis” for department staff. The NDP has yet to signal whether any of that funding or staffing will be restored. Mandate letters outlining the department’s responsibilities are expected in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, Manitobans have been calling for a whole-of-government approach to climate change, acknowledging the state of healthcare and the economy — two focal points for the new NDP government — are deeply impacted by the climate.

​​”The most daunting challenge of our time is climate change, and in Manitoba we have such serious challenges of water and waste, now with critical mineral development the importance of the portfolio is going to be more obvious than ever,” Mackintosh said.

Shuffles in roles and department names

Mining was shuffled from agriculture and resource development to natural resources and northern development to the portfolio of economic development, investment and trade under the previous government. The new cabinet combines the two departments into economic development, investment, trade and natural resources, suggesting mining will stay put (under the leadership of second-term MLA Jamie Moses, who has a background in agriculture and business) for the time being.

Schmidt will, however, inherit responsibility for the Sio Silica sand mine, a controversial proposal still making its way through the environmental licensing process. The Clean Environment Commission submitted a report on the project to Schmidt’s predecessor in June, who in turn passed the report on to an environment department advisory committee. That committee has been tasked with making the final call on whether — or how — to license the silica sand mine, but Schmidt will be the one to face the public when the decision is made.

Manitoba Hydro will also have a growing role to play in the future of climate policy in Manitoba. Kinew stressed his government’s commitment to lower fuel costs (by temporarily eliminating a flat-rate provincial gas tax) and making Hydro bills more affordable.

“The best way that we can do that is strengthening the public utilities board and making sure that we always keep Manitoba Hydro public,” Kinew said during the swearing-in ceremony.

Manitoba Hydro recently completed its first Integrated Resource Plan, which suggests the utility will face challenges keeping up with electricity demand in the coming years.

The Crown energy utility falls under the purview of the new minister of finance, Adrien Sala. Sala has been critic for finance and Manitoba Hydro since joining the legislature in 2019. He is one of few cabinet members with significant business experience prior to entering politics.

The party’s longtime environment critic Lisa Naylor joined cabinet Wednesday as minister of transportation and infrastructure. Her role will be far reaching — the province has a robust transport industry and is ever-discussing the need for better highway infrastructure — but will need to incorporate climate considerations such as electric vehicles, active transportation and public transit.

Given the significance and symbolism of several NDP cabinet appointments, intended to signal the government’s priorities for the upcoming term, the appointment of a relatively unknown new MLA to the climate file suggests environmental issues aren’t high on the priority list.

Throughout the campaign, Kinew’s climate promises represented only a symbolic departure from the status quo; he agreed to bring Manitoba up to par with national conservation and emission reduction targets, pledged funds for electric car rebates and promised a limited number of subsidized geothermal heating systems, but dedicated few other words — or dollars — to climate action in Manitoba.

This latest appointment only serves to double down on the lukewarm trend.

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

As a few hundred people applauded in support of a 10-year old girl at a community hall in early May in Fernie, B.C., a man at the front of the room wasn’t clapping.

Instead, Thomas McDonald asked some 250 people, mostly residents of this picturesque mining and resort town nestled in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, to quiet down.

But before McDonald — one of 15 directors elected on the region’s local government — could finish his sentence, the crowd drowned him out, cheering even louder for the elementary school student, Anya Harshan, as she and her father, Harshan Ramadass, took their seats.

Anya Harshan had just spoken about her science fair project on the Galloway Lands development project at the public hearing, chaired by McDonald. The real estate proposal would slash through a wildlife corridor — home to at least 10 rare or at-risk species — to build a gated community with up to 90 luxury homes.

Anya Harshan said her research led her to the conclusion that the Galloway Lands proposal was a bad idea.

“So please adults here who are responsible for this, say ‘No to Galloway,’ ” she told the crowd, prompting the chorus of cheers.

It wouldn’t be the only time McDonald urged the crowd to refrain from clapping or cheering so it would be a “safe space and a mutual space for everybody to express their opinions.”

But for many in the room, his efforts to curb their enthusiasm confirmed their fears that the local government — the Regional District of East Kootenay — had already made its decision.

The regional district is governed by nine officials elected at the municipal level from eight separate municipalities, along with the six area directors who represent different sectors outside of the boundaries of those municipalities.

Nine elected members of the district, including McDonald, would vote later that month to adopt by-law changes required to proceed with the project. Six, including Fernie’s Mayor Nic Milligan, voted against.

Ramadass, praised his daughter for being brave enough to speak up about a topic she cared so deeply about, with emotions running high.

“She actually went and had the courage to talk about it,” he said.

Ramadass is also a city councillor in Fernie, but he does not have a seat on the regional government. He said the regional district’s decision, which runs counter to widespread opposition to the project, strikes at the heart of the democratic process.

The public hearings revealed how broadly the community objects to the project: it’s something those in higher income households on the ski hill and lower income residents in apartments or mobile homes agree on.

Hundreds wrote letters to the district expressing their opposition, while only a small number voiced support.

The real estate project proposes a new private road with a gate to keep out non-residents. The road would require building a bridge that crosses over an environmentally sensitive area called Lizard Creek, an important habitat for an at-risk population of cutthroat trout. The land has been privately owned and would be sold to the developer as part of the deal.

In an interview with The Narwhal in May, the developer said the project strikes a balance by proposing to protect some of the Galloway Lands area, while also implementing a series of mitigation measures to address the impacts of the development.

The regional district reviewing the project represents more than 65,000 residents spread out over a vast area in southeastern B.C. This means its elected officials are often voting on issues affecting residents more than 100 kilometres away.

In this particular case, McDonald represents the area of the proposed development, near the Fernie Alpine Resort, a popular tourism destination just outside Fernie’s city limits. But most of those who voted with McDonald represent constituents who live in other parts of the regional district.

This also means Fernie residents and those who live on the ski hill have no power to vote for or against eight of the politicians who approved the Galloway Lands project.

“My trouble with this was more focused on grassroots democracy than anything else,” Ramadass said. “And you might call parts of [these] people conservatives, a bunch of people liberals, but pretty much a majority of the citizens were against this on various grounds. And my focus was to listen to our constituents.”

With the development pending, closer inspection of key players involved in the Galloway Lands project are fuelling concerns about whether the game was rigged.

The Galloway Lands proposal is spearheaded by Reto Barrington, a former Canadian Olympic skier and lawyer who has dabbled in real estate projects over the past few decades with varying degrees of success. He personally declared bankruptcy in 2013, before re-emerging with new projects.

Barrington is promoting the project through a private company he leads called Handshake Holdings Inc.

He has said the project will boost the overall economy and increase property tax revenues for the regional district, while offering new protections for some sensitive lands.

Regional director Thomas McDonald says campaign donations had ‘no strings attached’

During the public hearings, Harshan Ramadass was among the people attempting to raise objections about whether the regional district conducted a fair review.

“I know the lobbyists have a strong grip on many of you,” he wrote in an email sent to regional district staff last April. “Do the right thing. Say no to lobbyists, listen to citizens for once.”

Ramadass told The Narwhal he was referring to the people who funded McDonald’s election campaign.

Less than a year earlier, McDonald narrowly squeaked into office, defeating his rival by 17 votes. Of the $3,141.64 he declared in campaign expenses, more than 95 per cent was covered by donations from three prominent supporters of the Galloway Lands development. Two of them — Barrington’s spouse and a communications consultant on the project team — gave the maximum allowed donation, $1,250. The third was a retired regional district politician who recused himself from voting on the project in 2022 due to the appearance of a conflict of interest.

McDonald contributed about $150 to his own campaign, which made up the remainder of his expenses. He told The Narwhal in an interview that the donations did not influence his position.

He said he promised during the 2022 campaign that he would strike a balance between economic growth and sustainability and believes his donors contributed because they supported his views.

“Ultimately, you’re looking for funding to help get your message out, and I want to stress my message was my message, it wasn’t anybody else’s message,” McDonald said. “There’s no strings attached.”

Once elected, McDonald said he heard from multiple people about the project, listening to both the developer and the project’s opponents.

“Although there was a very polarized view on this — it was a hard decision for everybody — I felt that through keeping an open mind through the whole process and engaging with so many different people as the elected official, I really felt [there was] good governance,” McDonald said.

McDonald added that reading Handshake Holdings’ application reassured him the developer would be able to adequately protect Lizard Creek, as did the requirement that the developer complete an environmental assessment.

Handshake Holdings hired a consulting firm called Cascade Environmental Resource Ltd. to complete an environmental overview report in the summer of 2022. The report noted the proposed bridge over Lizard Creek could pose a threat to the trout, which are listed by both the federal and provincial governments under laws meant to protect endangered species, and that it would need a permit under B.C.’s Water Sustainability Act. B.C. doesn’t have a law dedicated to protecting endangered species, but requires some protections of these species under sections of seven different laws.

The consultants said construction of the bridge, as well as winter road salt runoff once it’s in use both posed pollution threats, but suggested these could be mitigated.

Cascade’s consultants spent three days doing a field assessment of the area in late July 2022. They also set up cameras to monitor various sites from July 26 to Sept. 29, 2022.

Despite the short sampling period, the report identified up to 10 rare and endangered species that could be affected by the project, including the Western screech owl, the American badger and the Grizzly bear.

B.C. ministry found Galloway Lands development would ‘permanently remove’ habitat for ‘multiple species’

Other experts, including local public health officials, First Nations, BC Parks and a provincial government biologist, have concerns about the risks of the project.

In a letter sent to the regional district in April, a senior fishery guardian from the Ktunaxa Nation Council said the Handshake Holdings proposal failed to acknowledge the importance of Lizard Creek and tributary stream fisheries that are habitat for the at-risk Westslope cutthroat trout. The letter also urged more studies, saying the proposal lacked details about how the developer planned to protect the streams.

Ariana McKay, a habitat biologist in the region for the B.C. Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship, told the regional district the development would “compromise” valuable habitat and recommended rejecting the project.

In late March, McKay sent the ministry’s assessment of the project to the regional district, noting the area was now “likely functioning as a refuge for wildlife from surrounding human impacts” and that no further development should be allowed in an area that has already been altered by human activity.

“The project area provides valuable habitat for multiple species and is currently relatively undisturbed; this project would permanently remove functioning habitat,” McKay wrote in an email to the district on March 29. 

“Access to surrounding undeveloped land should remain restricted to protect wildlife and habitat values from the impacts of increased access.”

Her assessment came after the regional district sent her a copy of the report prepared by the environmental consultants hired by Handshake Holdings.

BC Parks did not express opposition or support for the project, but warned the regional district last spring that the development could put pressure on nearby Mount Fernie Provincial Park: since the park is already next to existing residential development, it could be isolated as a habitat “island.”

B.C. Interior Health has also opposed the development, arguing there was a “fundamental disconnect” between current and anticipated housing needs in the area and the proposal from Handshake Holdings to build luxury homes. The agency said Galloway Lands project failed to address critical issues such as the region’s housing affordability crisis and the shortage of service industry workers who cannot afford to live in Fernie.

Despite these concerns, the regional district is letting the project go ahead. Various agreements require Handshake Holdings to conduct additional environmental studies and enact mitigation measures.

The company says it has changed an earlier proposal to outfit the new homes with septic tanks, which could create new environmental risks. Instead, Handshake Holdings now proposes to link the community to a wastewater system serving homes on the ski hill. 

Meeting the environmental conditions depends in part on whether the regional district — already struggling for revenues — to cover costs, has the resources to monitor construction.

There’s also the question of whether Handshake Holdings has the financial means to cover the costs of mitigation efforts — which is hard to say since the investors behind Handshake Holdings are shrouded in mystery.

B.C. Galloway Lands developer owed CRA $1.1 million when he went bankrupt

A number of supporters in town believe Barrington is a good businessman who delivers on his promises and generates profits.

Former Fernie mayor Mary Giuliano described Barrington as a “proven quantity with a strong connection to the town,” in an article published on a website operated by the Galloway Lands project’s communications consultant.

However, Barrington’s business ventures did not always work out as planned. Ten years ago, Barrington declared bankruptcy after racking up nearly $3.5 million in debts.

The Narwhal pieced together some details about Barrington’s business interests and track record through a review of corporate filings and court records in three provinces as well as interviews with people who have worked or interacted with him.

Those showed that Barrington previously set up several companies in Canada and also had loans worth several hundred thousand dollars in the United States.

According to his January 2013 bankruptcy court filing, Barrington’s largest creditor was the Canada Revenue Agency, to which he owed nearly $1.1 million. He also owed about $219,000 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, according to his bankruptcy proposal.

At that time, he said a downturn in the economy left him unable to pay his bills. While he confirmed owning shares in several companies, he reported they were worth a few thousand dollars, barely enough to cover his debts.

The bankruptcy came after the end of his involvement in another major housing project that was supposed to include a golf course and over 1,400 residences. Another developer wound up pursuing the incomplete project.

Some residents who live on the ski hill say this track record scares them.

“The last thing we want is a half-built development,” said Linda Hunter, president of the Fernie Snow Valley Community Association, which represents a few hundred households on the ski hill. “Or something that’s sitting there for years with a half-built bridge or a road and it just sits there stagnant.”

Most of Barrington’s companies ceased operations after 2012, except for Handshake Holdings, which was initially set up in Nova Scotia in 2004.

Throughout his bankruptcy proceedings in 2013, Handshake Holdings remained active, transferring its registration from Nova Scotia to Alberta in February, then British Columbia in October. The court discharged him of his bankruptcy in November 2013.

Barrington did not respond to a list of written questions about his 2013 bankruptcy, his business history, his interactions with McDonald and the political donation made by his wife.

“I’m not interested in chatting,” he said during a brief phone call. “You guys are just walking around trying to set traps with all the people you’re talking to. I’m not interested in that.”

When asked to explain what he meant about setting traps, Barrington hung up.

Shelley Barrington is listed as a director of Handshake Holdings and was also listed as the company’s president between 2013 and 2020, according to corporate filings. She did not respond to messages sent by The Narwhal on LinkedIn and Facebook seeking comment about her role at Handshake Holdings and the political donation made in her name.

Retired politician Mike Sosnowski says he helped McDonald finance his campaign

Mike Sosnowski is a former politician who donated $500 to McDonald’s campaign, according to the latter’s official campaign report. (McDonald said he accidentally misspelled the former politician’s family name as Sinowski in the campaign report.)

Sosnowski retired in 2022 after serving five terms over 17 years as an elected director in the area that is now represented by McDonald.

The retired politician said he’s known Barrington for nearly 20 years and expects the project will succeed with or without Handshake Holdings.

“If he doesn’t, somebody will, because it’s such a good project that somebody with maybe deeper pockets than him will do this project,” Sosnowski told The Narwhal in an interview.

Sosnowski said he believes the project would improve the finances of the local government, which would see an increase in property tax revenues.

He also agreed with Barrington’s arguments that the development would create new jobs in the community — even though this point spurred a controversy for Sosnowski, prior to the end of his term.

Sosnowski’s sons run a general contracting and supplies business called Foothills Silva Culture that builds roads and could benefit if the project proceeds. In May 2022, facing pressure from the Fernie Snow Valley Community Association, Sosnowski recused himself from discussions about the project due to an appearance of a conflict of interest. 

Sosnowski said he’d received legal advice that he was not in a conflict of interest, but he recused himself anyway because he didn’t want to fight the association. He told The Narwhal he no longer had a copy of that legal advice.

But he also took aim at the association, suggesting they’ve engaged in personal attacks against project supporters.

According to minutes of a meeting it held in March 2022, the association spent almost $15,000 on legal fees, research and studies in support of its opposition to the project.

Hunter, the association president, said this money was donated by members who felt strongly about stopping the project. She also said the amount reflects how costly it is for citizens to engage meaningfully in a project review.

Sosnowski questioned their sincerity.

“I look at Thomas [McDonald] and he’s so young. I don’t know if he’ll stay. He took a real kicking over this project from these people,” he said.

“These people are mean. They’ve got lots of money and lots of time.”

Sosnowski said he donated money to McDonald’s campaign and also offered to assist with fundraising after McDonald approached him expressing interest in running in the 2022 election. 

“I helped him,” Sosnowski told The Narwhal. “I talk to people all the time and [I told them] ‘Support Thomas. Give him some money. He’s gonna need some money.’ I’m a politician. I know what it takes. So if I support somebody I support them. And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with that.”

McDonald confirmed he asked Sosnowski’s advice about running in the election and that the retired politician assisted in fundraising or “streamlining” his campaign finances.

But Sosnowski declined to take credit for the donations from Barrington’s wife, Shelley, or another member of the Handshake Holdings team, Dan Savage. 

“I don’t think I spoke to either one of them to tell you the truth,” Sosnowski said with a chuckle. “It was other people I spoke to. That surprises me [other people did not donate]. It surprises me and it disappoints me too. I was hoping more people would loosen the purse strings.”

Savage operates a firm called Savage Marketing, listed as a communications consultant on the team behind the Galloway Lands proposal, according to an April 2023 version of Handshake Holdings project application, reviewed by The Narwhal.

When The Narwhal reached out to Savage to request an interview in July, he replied with an email that criticized two opponents of the project by name, describing them as corrupt. He also suggested that others were ski hill residents who made millions of dollars from oil and gas, but did not want anything to change. Savage did not respond to follow-up questions about whether he had any evidence of his claims, nor did he respond to a list of questions about his own involvement with the project and his $1,250-political-donation to McDonald’s campaign.

Instead he sent a short email scattered with additional insults about “local agitators” and a “witch hunt.” He also indicated he believed The Narwhal was headed in a “pathetic direction” for pursuing this report.

“Best not to comment,” Savage wrote in an email.

He did not respond to a follow up email from The Narwhal to explain what he meant.

B.C. residents accuse regional district of bias in Galloway development review

A number of residents opposed to the project told The Narwhal they believed the project review was flawed. These include two professional environmental consultants who live next to the area of the proposed development, Leslie Frank and Stella Swanson. Frank told The Narwhal that a full environmental assessment is needed to review the potential for “significant long-term impacts on a range of species” as well as cumulative effects. Swanson told the regional district in a letter sent in late April that the developer’s proposed mitigation measures were unlikely to succeed based on what she has previously observed in other development projects.

The regional district itself confirmed to The Narwhal it never released the project application from Handshake Holdings with its official meeting agendas before or during the public hearings and instead only shared a summary of the application.

As well, the local government did not publicly release a copy of the environmental overview report prepared by consultants, agreeing to a request from Barrington to only share the report with people who promised not to share it with anyone else.

In an emailed statement, the regional district told The Narwhal it maintains an open dialogue with applicants, members of the public and referral agencies during its review of applications. It said there was an “extensive dialogue” with the Galloway Lands developer.

“Interactions with the applicant and their agent were routine interactions associated with processing the application, procuring additional supporting information and keeping the applicant and agent advised of the procedures for processing and advancing the application to [the] board for consideration,” the district said in the email.

The provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs declined to comment on the project review, noting that the regional district was autonomous and independent. 

The ministry said it encourages local governments to apply best practices in land use decisions and to build strong relations with First Nations and consult with them. It also said that elected officials are required to provide an opportunity for residents to share their views on certain types of land use changes through public hearings and that members of the public can contact a provincial ombudsperson to complain if they are concerned about the process or outcome of a public hearing.

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure said the developer still needs to submit a traffic impact assessment before it gives its own approval for the project to proceed.

The Ministry of Forests, which has responsibility over permits under the Water Sustainability Act, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The project may also require federal authorization under the federal Fisheries Act, but Fisheries and Oceans Canada told The Narwhal in a statement it had not received any request to review the project and was unable to comment on it specifically.

Sosnowski maintains that Barrington’s proposal can actually prevent further environmental damage. 

He said the current zoning would still allow development that could cause more harm to local trails as well as Lizard Creek and the endangered cutthroat trout that live there.

“When Reto [Barrington] first talked to me, for me it was all about preserving what was there,” Sosnowski recounted. “Without this development somebody can build a home three times closer to the creek with septic tanks.”

Other locals say the proposal flies in the face of growing housing affordability concerns in a region that prides itself on access to nature and outdoor activity.

“The way people see this in Fernie is this is the kind of development that was probably okay back in the ’80s or ’90s when expansion and urban sprawl used to be the name of the game,” Harshan Ramadass, the Fernie city councillor, said.

“But people have matured. They’ve understood that denser, walkable communities are what they are looking for. But this is a project that solves nobody’s problem. And there I think it’s caused a lot of dissatisfaction with our community that these people are not listening to our voices.”

— With files from Ainslie Cruickshank

Updated Aug. 31, 2023, at 3:24 p.m. MT. This article was updated to clarify that B.C. has existing laws that are meant to offer protections for endangered species, but the province does not have a law dedicated to protecting endangered species.

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.