Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

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.

It was appropriately apocalyptic that Toronto’s climate-focused mayoral debate set for June 5 was canceled, the first time I’ve seen the Weather Network describe the day’s forecast as “smoky.” Whatever the “scheduling conflict” was that killed the event, it saved me from straining to hear politicians talk about the need to “balance environment with economy” over my own screeching that climate change is already expensive. Ask restaurant owners whose patios sat empty because nobody could breathe outside.

As the week went on, the skies remained hazy and the Toronto District School Board canceled outdoor recess. There’s no debate: climate change is happening here and now. Toronto needs a mayor willing to make courageous decisions and to communicate them clearly, someone who will fight for the people of this city as the risk of floods, smoke, heat and unreliable energy keeps rising.

As of the latest polls, Olivia Chow has a significant lead, with Mark Saunders and Ana Bailão about 20 points behind her and Josh Matlow now almost five points behind them. But the race isn’t over yet, and many of the candidates no longer getting headlines have good ideas to help Toronto rise above its ever-growing list of problems.

The most impressive environmental platform — I’ll tell you whose it is in a bit — focuses on immediate and near-future mitigation, not cutting our carbon footprint. Everyone needs to reduce greenhouse gasses, because it’s the right thing to do and because threats to food security and energy supply make this a good time to learn to live with less. But the reality is that meaningful reductions require systemic change on the national and international level. Citizens and mayors need to push for that, but we can’t make it happen by buying bamboo toothbrushes (I still do that, though). Local government’s main climate concern is coping with the immediate effects of the crisis, and it’s with that in mind I evaluated promises and platforms.

Let’s cross off, immediately, the deniers posing as delayers, namely Saunders. He doesn’t have a climate plan because he doesn’t have any plan. His website is a request, not an offer, asking for your support without saying what it will get you. The former police chief’s entire pitch is that he’ll keep us safe — a bold claim from someone who denied the existence of a serial killer targeting queer men.

Environmentally speaking, Saunders is not a serious person. Droning on that bikes cause gridlock is tired and untrue, and highlights another way he neglected Torontonians: failing to protect us from the hazards of cars when his force stopped enforcing traffic laws as pedestrian deaths spiked. When asked by Streets of Toronto whether the city’s climate plan was bold enough, he said yes, adding that “we can continue finding a balance between climate initiatives and other priorities.”

Balancing environment with economy? Excuse my screaming. You might not be able to hear me over the sports and theatre communities, as they watch other cities cancel outdoor performances and games because of poor air quality and wonder how long they have before that happens here.

Bailão is less hubristic, but her climate cred isn’t much better. Her traffic alleviation suggestions are decent. Fines for drivers that block intersections? Finally, thank you. But they’re far from daring. Her nod to food security is similar: I’m glad that she named the problem, but not especially excited that one of her fixes is more rooftop gardens. Protecting the farmland we need will require wide-ranging co-operation throughout the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and the candidate specifically promising to build relationships to safeguard the Greenbelt is Josh Matlow.

Overall, the midtown councillor has a much better plan and record than his competitors currently fighting for second place. As reported by the Globe and Mail, he’s called for a maximum temperature for rental units, and done outreach to help tower residents protect themselves during heat waves.

Matlow knows we need money to deal with our climate needs, and has a proposal to get it: raising $200 million for climate initiatives by instituting a levy on commercial parking lots, which he would use to make the TTC functional, as well as to retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and increase electric vehicle infrastructure. The levy could also, he says, encourage climate-friendly behaviour by businesses, which might forego paved space in favour of surfaces that absorb rain, and perhaps get people out of their cars. All in all, it’s a fair plan, if not quite as focused on near-term resilience as it could be.

As the frontrunner, Chow is making perfectly acceptable environmental promises. Many are similar to Matlow’s, though with fewer details on implementation, like bringing TTC service back to pre-pandemic levels, instituting a maximum temperature for rental units, and helping fund building retrofits. She also knows we need money, and is willing to raise property taxes to get it.

Her general lack of specifics has been rightfully called out. Take a pledge to work with Toronto Hydro on renewable energy projects, a lofty idea that would be complicated to implement, requiring buy-in from the province and others. I do like that Chow has a reputation for looking out for children and other vulnerable populations, as the climate emergency is entrenching inequity, which Toronto has a lot of.

But the most impressive climate platform I saw is from former Liberal MPP Mitzie Hunter. At this point in the campaign, her sails are flagging, if they were ever full. That said, her platform is comprehensive, costed, clear-eyed and confident. Environmentally, it focuses on mitigation, not emissions reduction which, again, makes sense municipally: of course we should try to limit the causes of climate change, but by now, the day-to-day of city life is dealing with its effects.

Hunter matches her opponents’ promises on improving the TTC, installing electric vehicle charging stations, and so on, then goes more than a few steps further.  To pull out just one proposal from her 72-page (!) platform, the candidate from Scarborough says she’ll educate Torontonians about flood risk mitigation twice a year, which is informed and impressive. Floods are Toronto’s biggest environmental worry, made worse by the John Tory-led council’s repeated refusal to institute a stormwater charge to update aging infrastructure.

Teaching people how to minimize their vulnerability to flooding isn’t sexy: it’s simply real work that needs to be done. I haven’t noticed another candidate mention it, or many of the other points on Hunter’s path to a greener city.

With two-ish weeks to go, I’m still extremely undecided. As much as I’d love to vote for someone I believe in instead of against someone I fear, I’m not counting it out. I’m also not a one-issue voter — I want a leader who can see the big picture, and work to make it as pretty as possible. But climate change is a crucial issue that makes every other problem worse. It requires time, money, and commitment. And Toronto needs a mayor who can see that clearly, despite the smoke.

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.

After a tight race, the Alberta election results are in and United Conservative Party Leader Danielle Smith will be the next premier of Alberta.

The party, deeply divided prior to the election after it nearly splintered under the leadership of Jason Kenney, managed to hold on to enough seats in battleground Calgary to fend off a resurgent NDP. 

An emboldened Smith called for Albertans to come together after a bitter election battle and then pivoted immediately to coming fights against what she sees as direct attacks from the federal government on Alberta’s oil and gas industry.

“And finally my fellow Albertans, we need to come together no matter how we voted to stand shoulder to shoulder against soon to be announced Ottawa policies that would significantly harm our provincial economy,” Smith said in her victory speech Monday night.

The premier-designate raised the specter of new limits on natural gas electricity generation and railed against the proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector. 

“Let me be clear, this is not a road we can afford to go down, and if [Prime Minister Justin Trudeau] persists, he will be hurting Canadians from coast to coast and he will strain the patience and goodwill of Albertans in an unprecedented fashion,” she said. 

“And as premier I cannot under any circumstances allow these contemplated federal policies to be inflicted upon Albertans, I simply can’t and I won’t.”

The campaign, though neck and neck, was relatively short on bold promises, particularly when it comes to energy and the environment, but Smith’s victory speech provides insight into what will be a combative four years which are critical to moving forward on Canada’s climate goals. 

Smith won the leadership of the UCP in 2022 with a signature promise to introduce a Sovereignty Act she claimed would allow the province to ignore federal legislation — a proposal specifically targeted at environmental policies like the federal carbon price.

From picking battles to boosting carbon storage and promoting parks as playgrounds, here’s a breakdown of what to expect during Smith’s first full term.

Alberta election results mean UCP will push back the target date for a net-zero economy

The UCP doesn’t seem too concerned about hitting a hard target when it comes to a net-zero economy, and according to its climate plan, the primary reason for moving in that direction is so the oil and gas industry can continue. 

“This is an Alberta-made plan built with our expertise, our unique emissions profile and our economic circumstances at its heart,” Smith wrote in the introduction to the plan. “Instead of moving away from hydrocarbons, we will use these resources in innovative ways to ensure Alberta continues to provide the world with sustainably produced energy and products.” 

The climate plan, released prior to the 2023 Alberta election, was largely without details of how to achieve any of the goals it broadly outlined.

It also set 2050 as a target for net-zero, but only as an “aspiration.” However, Smith has said the 2050 national target is achievable if Ottawa works more collaboratively with the province. 

While the UCP acknowledges the need to invest in cleaner technology and the economic benefits that come with that investment, it has been cautious about moving too quickly and doing damage to the oil and gas industry. 

While the party and Smith have pushed back against targets for drastic emissions reductions, they have been particularly antagonistic to pushing for a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. 

During the campaign, the UCP released an attack ad with flawed numbers arguing a grid transition would be too expensive and hurt the economy. 

Without Alberta on board, the country is unlikely to hit its targets by 2035.

Danielle Smith will support more investment in hydrogen as an alternative fuel source

Smith is excited about hydrogen and Alberta’s role as a leader in what could be an US$10-trillion industry by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. 

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen our business community as aligned on this issue. … We not only can do this, we can do it better than anyone else,” Smith told an Edmonton Chamber of Commerce crowd last year. 

“And that’s the message that the rest of the world needs to hear.”

Smith is eager to continue the work outlined in Alberta’s Hydrogen Roadmap, released in 2021 under former UCP premier Jason Kenney.

That roadmap calls for big investments in producing and transporting hydrogen, but also in trying to create a market for the gas — including the creation of refuelling stations for heavy transportation in the province. 

Hydrogen was included in the UCP’s election commitments, but there are challenges when it comes to the emerging sector. Much of the UCP’s excitement surrounds hydrogen generated from fossil fuels — which would require massive spending on carbon capture utilization and storage to make it cleaner. 

The push for hydrogen means the party can continue to support and champion the traditional oil and gas sector, while pushing for emissions reductions. It also has an ally in the federal government, which is pushing its own strategy for growing hydrogen production in the country. 

Alberta election results mean more investment in carbon capture

Like with hydrogen, the UCP is eager to support carbon capture utilization and storage as a means to bolster the existing oil and gas industry while reducing carbon pollution — at least in theory. 

Large-scale and effective carbon capture is difficult and expensive and while some of the technology is proven and effective, some is not. The UCP views it as a way to increase production in the energy sector.

The party’s climate plan released prior to the Alberta election didn’t include much in the way of details, but it did lean heavily on carbon capture to solve the province’s woes. 

Ottawa has offered billions of dollars in tax credits for projects, but so far the province has balked at providing its own incentives. 

Smith has mused on changing that.

In its previous term, the UCP introduced a process for evaluating and approving carbon storage hubs and invested, or set aside, $1.8 billion for carbon capture utilization and storage projects.

Smith will likely fan conspiracy theories about federal environmental inspections

During Smith’s leadership campaign last year, she posted a meme to Twitter playing off conspiracy theories about federal “climate police.” 

But that wasn’t just rhetoric aimed at shoring up her right flank. In March, her government said it intended to introduce legislation that would bar federal employees from “trespassing” on private land.

The move mirrored legislation in Saskatchewan, after federal inspectors took water samples from private property, which they are legally allowed to do. 

The proposed legislation in Alberta wasn’t unveiled prior to the election, but watch for it resurfacing now that the UCP has a new mandate. 

The UCP will continue fights about carbon pricing

It’s not clear what the province could do about the federal carbon levy for consumers, having already taken the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in favour of the federal government. 

That didn’t stop the UCP from vowing to “axe the carbon tax” as part of its Alberta election pledges. 

There’s sure to be pushback and lots of noise when the federal price increases in $15 increments each year. The current rate is $65 per tonne, as is the provincial levy for industrial emitters.

Carbon pricing is sure to be a central front for Smith’s sovereign Alberta rhetoric and will be used to bolster arguments the province is being unfairly targeted by Ottawa.All provinces and territories have a carbon price.  

Smith will pick even more fights about a just transition

At the start of the year, a war of words erupted between Smith and the federal government over proposed “just transition” legislation meant to support workers for a new economy and invest in cleaner industries. 

Smith and the UCP broadly support all the elements likely to be introduced in any federal legislation but took deep offense to the term “just transition” and pushed back. 

The federal government, which had initially promised the legislation for this spring — right in time for a tense Alberta election — instead released an interim, and relatively vague, sustainable jobs plan.  

Although the elements are unlikely to be controversial, expect Smith and the UCP to use the plan and its development as part of the narrative the federal government is overreaching and has a secret desire to shut down Alberta’s oilpatch. 

What the Alberta election results mean for oil and gas

The federal government wants to see carbon pollution from Canada’s oilpatch decrease by 42 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030 — an ambitious target that has raised the ire of both the UCP and the opposition NDP. 

The proposed framework will take into account existing and upcoming climate regulations, according to the federal government, but specifics aren’t expected until the end of this year. 

Smith argues the cap on emissions is a de-facto cap on production because there’s no way the industry can reduce its per-barrel emissions quickly enough. 

Before she went silent on her Sovereignty Act, Smith was arguing she could use it to fight the cap. Former environment minister Sonya Savage, who chose not to seek re-election, said last year the province would challenge an emissions cap in court.

With Alberta election results, expect UCP to rally against fertilizer rules meant to reduce agricultural carbon pollution

In her mandate letter to then-agriculture minister Nate Horner last year, Smith outlined her expectations around pushing back against “federal programs that hinder the advancement of production or improvement of yields to better supply Albertans and the world with food.”

She cited the federal government’s plan to reduce emissions from nitrogen fertilizer use by 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030.

The federal move, a voluntary measure that would seek to reduce emissions, not fertilizer use, became fodder for conspiracies and misinformation last year, drowning out legitimate concerns about the impact on farmers and crop production. 

It’s another federal plan that will likely stir controversy as it moves forward. 

The UCP will make Alberta parks more about playgrounds than protection

When she took office, Smith shook up provincial ministries and created more cabinet posts. Notably, she split environment and parks and created two new ministries: Tourism, Parks and Forestry, as well as the Ministry of Environment and Protected Areas. 

The move left many scratching their heads and questioning why parks are different from protected areas. 

The UCP then introduced a swath of new investments across parks in the province, but all geared towards more access, more trails and more campgrounds. The direction is clearly toward increasing tourism — and off-road vehicle use — with little funding for increased environmental protection. 

The UCP government also introduced a flurry of seemingly minor changes that could have a big impact on parks and the environment. 

Smith may very well continue to push to pay oil companies to clean up their old wells

Cleaning up the mess left behind by oil and gas exploration and extraction has been a big issue in Alberta for decades. Bankrupt companies walking away from liabilities, solvent companies letting wells sit inactive for years and a regulatory regime that can’t keep up — all have led to a festering problem with no simple solution. 

There are billions of dollars in liabilities spread across the province. 

Prior to the Alberta election, Smith’s pitch to tackle the issue of older and more contaminated wells was to introduce a royalty credit system for companies that do the work — essentially paying them to fulfill their legal obligation to clean up after themselves. 

The province consulted on a pilot of the project that would spend up to $100 million, but the fanfare that accompanied the initial launch of the idea slowly faded as critics piled on. 

The idea was originally promoted by Smith when she was working as a lobbyist for the Alberta Enterprise Group, a business advocacy organization. It remains to be seen if her government will continue with the plan, but it has said it is waiting on results from those engagement sessions. 

Beyond the pay-for-cleanup plan, the provincial regulator is implementing changes to its liability framework, with some elements still under development. 

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 Alberta election campaign has so far been short on policy and long on controversy. Both Danielle Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) and Rachel Notley’s Alberta New Democratic Party (NDP) have focused the vast majority of their attention on attacking the other side and trying to rile up anger.

The lack of substance is particularly stark when it comes to environmental and climate change policies, despite the importance of the next four years in terms of federal and provincial moves to stem carbon pollution and the impact they will have on Alberta’s economy. 

Climate, environment and the economy are inseparable in a province where the power of the oilpatch means a decision in one realm can have significant impacts in the other. 

It’s not just the debates, discussions and attacks that have lacked substance in these critical areas, however. Each party’s platform is largely focused on other priorities, especially cost of living concerns. 

Just before the election, the UCP government unveiled its new climate plan, dubbed the Alberta emissions reduction and energy development plan. But the plan was light on details about what exactly the government would do and how it would do it. 

It was more of a plan to make a plan.

It’s focused on reducing emissions in the oil and gas industry while continuing to promote the province as a more ethical choice for global energy demand.

“You can’t just pick random targets with a random date and say we’re going to get there,” then-environment minister Sonya Savage said while launching the plan. “We have to do the hard work and that’s what our plan is going to do.”

There’s not much more detail of any climate or environmental policies listed as priorities for the UCP this election. There is no platform book outlining its planned priorities like last election, but rather a list that has been updated as announcements are made. 

Like the UCP, the NDP has foregone a detailed platform book for this election and is also listing its commitments and updating them as announcements are made (or re-announced). 

The New Democrats, while in power from 2015 to 2019, put an emissions cap on the oilsands, instituted a modern carbon price, set a target to reduce methane from industry by 45 per cent by 2025, phased out coal-fired electricity and set a target of 30 per cent renewable energy feeding the grid by 2030.

Those policies have all remained under the UCP government.

But the NDP campaign has largely avoided talking about climate and the environment, while also saying the federal government is moving too quickly on possible emissions caps and reductions for the oil and gas sector. 

Even with scant details, there are some hints about the major parties’ priorities. Here’s where the NDP and UCP stand on 10 key environment, climate and energy issues.

1. Parks and protected areas

Parks and protected areas have been a contentious issue in Alberta since the UCP, under then-premier Jason Kenney, tried to remove 164 of 473 sites from the Alberta Parks system and permanently shut down ten provincial parks and provincial recreation areas in 2020. More recently, the UCP has introduced a slate of more quiet changes to the parks system, leading conservation advocates to ring alarm bells about their impacts.

The UCP has since introduced investments in parks across the province while in power and says it will continue to promote recreation and tourism in those areas, as well as “improving access to snowmobile and off-highway vehicle trails by collaborating with recreational organizations.”

The NDP also pledges to protect parks and public lands, but there’s little in the way of details. 

Where the NDP does get specific is in its pledge to introduce the Eastern Slopes Protection Act, which would ban coal mining in the Rocky Mountains and surrounding areas. This is in direct response to the deeply unpopular move by the UCP under Kenney to open the area to coal mines. 

2. Bolstering hydrogen as an alternative fuel source

Hydrogen has been oft-touted as a key fuel source in a net-zero future. Hydrogen does not release carbon pollution when burned, but its role in a net-zero economy depends on how it’s produced — whether it’s made from water, using electrolysis fuelled by renewable energy, or generated from fossil fuels. 

The UCP is keen to cultivate a hydrogen economy based on the Hydrogen Roadmap released in 2021 by Kenney. It’s included in the party’s “job growth and diversification strategy.” Much of the UCP’s excitement surrounds hydrogen generated from fossil fuels.

The goal of the roadmap is to lure greater investment in infrastructure and production across the province. It hopes to “get Alberta’s hydrogen products to international markets, making Alberta a world leader in clean, low-cost hydrogen.” 

The UCP government has said it will continue to support that strategy and touts prior investments including $161 million for a hydrogen facility in Edmonton run by American multinational gas company Air Products, and says it previously launched an expression of interest for hydrogen fuelling stations for the transportation sector. 

The NDP hasn’t staked out an election position on hydrogen, but it does want to expand the existing Alberta Petrochemical Incentive Program, which includes funding for hydrogen facilities.

While in opposition, the party released a proposal that included examining the possibility of a hydrogen export pipeline, incentives for new projects, examining hydrogen hubs and plenty of consultations. 

3. Embracing carbon pricing — or not

Every jurisdiction in Canada has a price on carbon pollution, whether it’s a program designed by the province or territory or the backup federal system. For consumers, Alberta relies on the federal system, which adds a regulatory charge to fossil fuels like gasoline for vehicles and natural gas for home heating. According to the federal government, 90 per cent of fuel charge proceeds are rebated through quarterly Climate Action Incentive payments. The program is designed to act as a financial incentive to reduce personal fossil fuel consumption.

The UCP and its leader have pledged to continue to fight against carbon pricing, despite that argument already reaching the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled Ottawa was within its rights to implement the charge.

“A UCP government will work to axe the carbon tax altogether because the best way governments can help address affordability is by ensuring you, the taxpayer, keep more money in your pocket,” reads a section of the party’s primary pitch, vowing to cut taxes. (The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision about carbon pricing specifically noted it “has nothing to do with the concept of taxation” and is not a carbon tax.)

The party, however, also trumpets the fact Alberta’s Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation — itself a form of carbon pricing — was deemed equivalent to the federal charge for industrial emitters and was allowed to continue instead of adopting Ottawa’s price. 

The new climate plan released just prior to the election supports that existing carbon price.

The NDP has avoided talking about carbon pricing this election, despite introducing Alberta’s first comprehensive and contemporary carbon price in 2018 (although a precursor was introduced by the Progressive Conservatives in 2007, making Alberta the first place in North America to introduce a price on carbon).

But while it hasn’t campaigned on support for a price on carbon, the party hasn’t come out swinging against it either. 

Notley has said it’s unlikely her party would re-introduce a provincial consumer carbon price again, meaning the federal price would remain. 

If the past is prologue, it’s safe to assume the party remains supportive of the idea.

4. Expanding carbon capture technology

Carbon capture, utilization and storage is a hot-button topic in Alberta. The term encompasses any technology that removes carbon from industrial processes and either stores it deep underground, presumably forever, or uses the captured carbon to make other products.

While in power, the NDP was opposed to government funding of carbon capture projects, but Notley has since come out in favour of it, clashing with federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh over his calls to kill the Carbon Capture Tax Credit introduced by Ottawa. 

The UCP sees the technology as a sort of panacea for the oil and gas industry, betting the technology can be used to reduce emissions and increase production in the province. The climate plan introduced in April relies heavily on carbon capture and storage. 

While in power, the party introduced a process for evaluating and approving carbon storage hubs. The government has invested, or set aside, $1.8 billion for carbon capture utilization and storage projects.

5. Riding the clean energy surge

Clean energy in the province, like wind and solar, has surged largely due to the absence of government intervention and that’s likely to continue under either party. 

The UCP’s climate plan considers renewable energy, but also notes it believes the province’s electricity grid “cannot run on these intermittent sources alone,” and it expects natural gas will play a “key, long-term role in Alberta.”

The province is already bound by a requirement in Alberta’s Renewable Electricity Act to ensure 30 per cent of electricity is produced from renewable resources by 2030, a requirement introduced by the NDP. The province is on course to hit or exceed that target. 

The NDP, which introduced policies that fostered the surge in renewables, has been supportive of renewable energy but has not made any pledges as part of its campaign. 

No matter which party wins, the focus will have to turn to the issue of transmission, something experts say is the biggest challenge for moving beyond the 30 per cent target.

6. Navigating a ‘just transition’ for fossil fuel energy workers

The first order of business when Smith won the leadership was to introduce her (watered down) Sovereignty Act, advertised as a way for Alberta to ignore federal rules when it didn’t like them. This was explicitly tied to environmental policies. 

Since then, Smith has come out against proposed legislation to help transition workers during a shift away from fossil fuels and emissions caps on the oil and gas sector. 

The rift over the term “just transition” — referring to retraining workers and investing in economic diversification — reached a fever pitch earlier this year even if it was just a war of words. 

Little has been said about it during the election campaign.

The UCP’s website nods to Smith’s commitment to oppose Ottawa’s plans for environmental policy, saying the party “is committed to continuing to set our own made-in-Alberta policies to effectively and responsibly manage our environment and natural resources while focusing on the unique needs of Albertans and our industries.”

Notley also came out against the proposed legislation earlier this year, although her government oversaw a similar process as it raced to phase out coal-fired electricity in the province. Her concerns, however, were about a lack of detail and consultation about the proposal — which she blamed on both Ottawa and the UCP government. 

She has said the federal government should drastically increase investments in low-emissions projects if it’s serious about shifting workers to new industries.

7. Shifting to a net-zero economy

Much has been said — by governments and industry alike — about transitioning to a net-zero economy in the years to come. Net zero can be achieved either through eliminating all carbon pollution or by offsetting or capturing emissions, either through carbon capture and storage or other options, like tree-planting.

In its climate plan, the UCP made multiple mentions of its “aspiration” for the province to become net zero. “Alberta’s plan includes an aspiration to achieve a carbon neutral economy by 2050, and to do so without compromising affordable, reliable and secure energy for Albertans, Canadians and the world,” the plan says. (The Government of Canada has already committed to achieving net zero by 2050.)

The UCP’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 in Alberta is aspirational, with no hard targets, no hard policies and no apparent rush. 

Recently, the UCP released a video attacking Notley and the NDP for supporting the federal goal of achieving a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. 

The ambitious plan will be difficult for a province still reliant on fossil fuels as it transitions from coal to natural gas and will be expensive (although not as expensive as the attack ad suggests). 

The NDP doesn’t address net zero in its election commitments, it supports achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and Notley has said achieving a net-zero grid by 2035 is not only achievable, but a necessary investment.

8. Providing clean energy tax credits

The NDP’s plan to spur investment and attract new jobs focuses largely on industrial development and includes an expansion of the existing petrochemical incentive program. But it also includes a new tax credit to “spur investment in cleantech, carbon materials, critical minerals processing and advanced manufacturing.”

“Our energy sector has provided good jobs and prosperity for our province for generations, but we aren’t seeing the benefits of oil price booms of the past,” reads the NDP pitch on its website. 

“Investment has flatlined and wages have stagnated. We need to keep looking ahead to the future and continue moving our economy forward, while building on our strengths.”

The NDP also points to the massive incentives from the U.S. government as part of its Inflation Reduction Act, for things like renewable energy and carbon capture and storage, and says Alberta has to keep up or risk losing billions in investment. 

“Alberta must compete,” it says. “Decisions we make this year will have long-lasting implications for Alberta’s future.”

The UCP has not released any detailed plans about tax credits for clean energy, but has been vocal in its support of credits for carbon capture utilization and storage 

The federal government announced billions in credits last year. Smith has said that’s not enough, but refused to commit to a provincial tax credit until Ottawa offers more. 

“We are working towards the same goal … then we can figure out what portion comes from federal tax relief and what portion comes from provincial tax relief,” Smith said in January.

9. Supporting expanded public transit

Though transit is largely thought of as an urban issue — and the purview of municipal governments — it has attracted some attention from the provincial parties as they play to the central battleground of Calgary. 

The NDP says it will begin work on the north leg of the massive Green Line LRT project, which is currently only partially funded. 

Late last year, Smith said she wanted “to explore the option of expanding Calgary’s LRT system to the Calgary International Airport,” as well as a rail link between Calgary and Banff, adding, “the potential of utilizing hydrogen-powered locomotives.”

10. Testing the waters with small modular nuclear reactors

In the UCP’s aspirational climate plan, small modular nuclear reactors are touted as a way to reduce emissions in the oilsands, as well as the electricity grid. Small modular nuclear reactors split radioactive atoms like uranium in a process that releases heat. That heat can be converted to electrical energy, often through converting water into steam to drive a turbine — all in a much smaller operation than a traditional nuclear facility. 

The UCP, while in power, signed a joint strategic plan with Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick to advance the reactors in Canada. 

“Small modular reactors are a new and versatile technology that can supply non-emitting energy in different applications, including electricity,” reads the climate plan. “Alberta is working with other provinces to ensure the appropriate regulatory framework is in place should the private sector pursue SMRs.”

The technology is still relatively new and untested at scale. There are no full-scale modular reactors operating in the world, but there are prototyes up and running in Russia and China. Critics question whether the technology is viable or clean. 

The NDP has not staked out a position on the issue, but Notley has said her previous opposition to nuclear power is softening. 

“Folks very much connected with the environmental movement, that I wouldn’t have expected, are now saying, ‘You know what, I want you to take a look at this,’ ” she told Alberta Today in January.

Even without comprehensive Alberta election platforms, announcements keep coming

There could still be more coming from the parties as election day approaches on May 29, with a flurry of announcements and press conferences happening daily. But the focus is unlikely to shift toward the environment. 

Cost of living and social services — particularly healthcare — are dominating the campaign promises, but even those have been muted by the near-daily revelation of Smith controversies. 

Those controversies — from comparing vaccinated Albertans to Nazis to musing about arresting police who enforced public health laws — have been met with attacks trying to paint Notley and the NDP as socialists bent on bankrupting the province. 

There’s been little space for climate change and the environment despite the critical four-year stretch that will face the next government. The central split in the priorities of each party at this stage appears to be one of temperament — whether Alberta works on the issues, or fights against 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.

Political fundraisers and campaigners who help politicians get elected may soon be able to lobby those same politicians during their term in office, under a proposal from a federal watchdog to update lobbying rules in Canada.

Under existing rules, any lobbyist who becomes a major fundraiser or senior political organizer is not allowed to lobby any elected politician they’ve assisted for about four years or the duration of that government’s term in office. This restriction was introduced to prevent political operatives who work in the private sector from using their government connections to get ahead.

Changes proposed by Nancy Bélanger, the federal lobbying commissioner, would allow lobbyists who become full-time political campaigners and fundraisers to lobby those same politicians sooner: a year after their election. If they take on a leadership role, like serving as a campaign manager, the waiting period would be two years.

Bélanger has said the changes are meant to clarify the rules, and strike a balance between guarding against conflicts of interest and impairing lobbyists’ constitutional right to participate in elections.

Critics, however, say Bélanger’s proposed shortening of the “cooling-off period” — the period of time before a lobbyist can lobby their former political boss — would create an unfair advantage for powerful corporate interests such as the fossil fuel industry, and contribute to growing levels of public distrust in Canada’s democratic institutions.

“Reducing the current cooling-off period from four years to as little as one year will create a possible scenario where someone goes from fundraising for a candidate to lobbying the same minister, within the same term of office,” NDP ethics critic Matthew Green told The Narwhal.

“I think this change would only serve to increase a growing cynicism around the revolving door between corporations, lobbyists and political parties.”

Green, a member of the House of Commons ethics committee, moved a motion in December to delay the rollout of Bélanger’s new rules until she can appear before the committee and explain her changes.

The House is adjourned and returns late January, after which the committee is expected to schedule Bélanger’s appearance.

Green said that when the committee returns, he hopes members can hear from the commissioner as well as other “subject matter experts” on how to “best ensure that Canada has the gold standard when it comes to having clear, effective and transparent rules around lobbying.”

‘There’s all sorts of ways I can … try to shape decisions’

James Turk managed several successful campaigns in the 1970s and 1980s, including for former longtime Toronto city councillor Joe Pantalone, as well as a number of provincial politicians and school trustees. He said the new rules could have helped a political organizer like him unduly influence a politician after an election.

“I know the person well, I know their idiosyncrasies,” said Turk, who is now director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University. “There’s all sorts of ways I can … try to shape decisions that that person would make.”

Turk said allowing this type of lobbying by senior political operatives would be “wholly inappropriate” and not in the public interest.

The centre is one of 14 organizations representing civil liberties, freedom of expression and climate action that signed an open letter opposing some of Bélanger’s changes.

Any amount of fundraising or campaigning for a politician, the groups say, should be seen as a big favour that creates an appearance of a conflict of interest lasting for years — arguably, they say, over that politician’s entire career.

Lobbyists, meanwhile, say that even though it’s common for political strategist types to switch back-and-forth between election organizing or fundraising and consulting or lobbying, they are unlikely to take advantage of the new rules in great numbers in the way Green and Turk have proposed.

Getting involved in political work is inherently risky for lobbyists because governments can change, and a lobbyist’s political opinion might wind up offending a new minister or official, according to Kevin Bosch, a managing partner at Ottawa-based public affairs firm Sandstone Group.

Bosch has previously been a research director for Liberal members of Parliament and worked in Liberal Party of Canada headquarters. He has also registered to lobby for clients such as Amazon and the Canadian Nuclear Association.

He said when people like him become lobbyists, they tend to pull back from political activity out of their own desire to self-censor.

“I think all the current lobbyists I know, they kind of know, ‘Well, I can’t go take on that role’,” said Bosch, who also recently worked with the Government Relations Institute of Canada, a diverse industry group that includes fossil fuel firms, public relations firms and some large Canadian banks and corporations.

“I don’t expect there will be people trying to game the system because there’s just not a lot happening now,” he said.

It would also involve a lot of luck for a lobbyist to correctly identify and work for a politician who, two years later, winds up overseeing the particular area of government that aligns with the interests of the company paying that lobbyist to represent them, Bosch argued.

“You’d have to do a lot of guessing: ‘Okay, I’ll be the campaign manager for this person, because I think they’re going to be in cabinet’ — which may or may not happen — and, ‘I think they’re going to be in a cabinet position that could affect me,’ if you’re trying to get the natural resources minister or something … it’s very hard to know.”

Bosch said he was fine with Bélanger’s proposed two-year cooling-off period for strategic political work, describing it as a “reasonable system,” but felt the one-year ban for other types of activity could dissuade people from getting involved in politics.

The institute’s views are supported by other big firms like Suncor Energy, which pushed the commissioner in its own submission to drop restrictions on lobbyists who help out campaigns “if only to allow people to be involved in the democratic process of an election.”

Suncor told Bélanger it believed lobbyists should not have to face a ban on lobbying if their political activity was not significant enough to warrant a two-year cooling-off period. The company did not respond to requests for comment from The Narwhal.

Federal lobbyists urged to ‘exercise caution’

According to the commissioner’s most recent annual report, over 8,000 lobbyists registered at least once during the 2021-22 fiscal year, representing over 3,000 organizations and corporations.

Lobbyists filed nearly 10,000 records of contact with MPs that year, and over 8,000 more with ministers, senators and public servants.

The law governing federal lobbyists in Canada is the Lobbying Act, which says the commissioner must develop a “Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct,” but does not specify exactly what it should include.

The current version of that code dates to 2015, and is similarly sparse, at two pages, not including the preamble. Finally, there is a separate “guidance” document that clarifies how the code should be interpreted.

Bélanger is proposing to update the code by changing some of the 2015 elements, as well as bringing in new information, such as rules around political work, that are currently only covered in the guidance document.

Bélanger’s new code would include a two-year cooling-off period for lobbyists who conduct high-profile work for politicians or political parties, like serving as a campaign manager or in another leadership position, serving on the executive of a riding association or organizing fundraisers or campaign events.

A second category for “other political work” would carry a one-year lobbying ban in the updated code, such as lobbyists asking for donations to politicians’ campaigns, handing out campaign materials, conducting political research or handling logistics for campaign events.

However, this year-long ban would only apply if the lobbyist did that work on “a full-time or near-full-time basis,” or had frequent or extensive interaction with the candidate.

A third proposed category of political activity would not result in any bans on lobbying. This could include “attending a fundraising or campaign event” (but not organizing one or fundraising full time), posting campaign material during an election or making political donations.

“These definitions work to provide a lobbyist with a clear and precise sense of how the rule applies to their circumstances,” she wrote in her proposal.

Her office also argued to The Narwhal that the new code avoids overreach, especially since the commissioner would also have the power under the new rule to reduce the cooling-off period herself.

“The ability to reduce the cooling-off period allows an analysis, on a case-by-case basis, in circumstances where the duration or the importance of the work may not warrant the applicable cooling-off period,” Bélanger’s spokesperson wrote in an email.

Bosch also helped write the institute’s submission to the commissioner, arguing limits on lobbying imposed as a result of political activity could violate constitutional rights.

The group’s key argument rests on the voting rights section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada as going beyond the election of a particular government to also include “the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.”

Bélanger has also acknowledged her changes come after concerns raised by “several stakeholders” that “keeping a rule related to political engagement in the code could infringe a lobbyist’s Charter rights.”

The commissioner sought a legal opinion from an outside law firm on the political work of lobbyists following her most recent consultations in June 2022, the spokesperson confirmed to The Narwhal.

In her proposal, she described the new rules as “carefully crafted to respect Charter-protected rights and freedoms.”

The name of the law firm is being kept under wraps, with Bélanger’s office citing solicitor-client privilege.

The Narwhal asked how Bélanger’s office selected the law firm, including whether it had verified if any lawyers at the firm were also working for one of the companies or industry associations who made submissions during the commissioner’s consultations. The spokesperson said the firm was picked “based on its administrative law expertise and that it is not subject to the Lobbying Act.”

The spokesperson also said the law firm “ran a conflict of interest screen” when it was retained.

Climate, civil rights groups wants five and 10-year lobbying bans

Despite the proposal being more fine-tuned than the current rules, Bélanger’s changes could result in closer relationships between oil and gas lobbyists and federal government officials, according to Kai Nagata, energy and democracy director at the Victoria, B.C.-based advocacy group Dogwood. Lobbyists for the oil and gas industry are already registering over 100 communications a month.

The group, which signed the open letter along with Turk’s centre, does political organizing and campaigning on issues and during elections but says that it does not lobby federal politicians.

Nagata said there is a “growing corporate influence” that is “chewing away at the last shreds of trust” Canadians have in their politicians, and the new rules won’t help. He said tighter rules were “worth it for public interest groups, if they curtail the money and influence of the corporate sector.”

“We need more distance between oil and gas lobbyists and politicians, not less,” he said.

“The proposed changes to the lobbyists’ code of conduct would allow them to literally get politicians elected, and then turn around and lobby them on behalf of corporate clients. Public officials can’t make fair decisions in the public interest if they owe their job to powerful lobbyists.”

The groups want Bélanger to extend the cooling-off period for lobbyists doing political work to five or 10 years instead.

And they believe all political activity — aside from very basic actions undertaken by many voters during elections, which they describe as “canvassing or volunteering a couple of times during a campaign period” — should be subject to lobbying bans.

When people work in high-profile positions in political campaigns, like becoming a campaign manager, they are essentially in control of everything the politician does, Turk said, and are seen as essential to that politician getting elected.

“So if I can turn up a year later, or two years later and say, ‘Well, John, I want to talk to you about the importance of you passing this piece of legislation,’ I have the kind of relationship with the now-prime minister, or cabinet minister or opposition leader that few people in the country would have,” he said.

“I’m profiting from that personal relationship I developed working for him, by making money as a lobbyist to then push him, and he’s going to feel obligated to me in ways that he wouldn’t feel obligated to a person that had no involvement.”

Bélanger’s special rule for lobbyists doing “near full-time” political work was also questioned by Ottawa-based nonprofit Democracy Watch, which wrote the open letter, in December 2022.

‘These clerical items will add significant administrative work’

Adding to concerns over political rules, the Canadian Labour Congress, an umbrella organization that represents dozens of labour unions has also expressed doubts about the practicality of another proposal from Bélanger to change lobbying rules regarding gifts and hospitality.

It’s common for organizations to host after-work receptions on or around Parliament Hill, where MPs from all parties, as well as journalists and corporate executives often mingle with lobbyists, have a glass of wine or eat an appetizer. Lobbyists see receptions as more efficient than having to book individual meetings with multiple MPs.

Offering free food and drinks at a reception can be acceptable as long as the cost is “reasonable,” the current rules say, and there is no specific dollar amount tied to this rule.

Bélanger’s proposal sets the limit for food or drinks offered by lobbyists to officials at in-person meetings, events or receptions at $40 in 2023 dollars, before taxes, tips and other fees like rental or service charges. Lobbyists also can’t offer the same official more than $80 worth of food and drinks within the same year.

“The purpose of the limits on gifts and hospitality is to support equitable access to government regardless of resources,” Bélanger wrote in her proposal. She said she arrived at the $40 limit by considering appropriate federal hospitality standards as well as typical meal costs in restaurants and the impact of inflation.

A lobbyist can also ask the commissioner for an exemption to the limits due to circumstances like regional pricing or dietary requirements.

Canadian Labour Congress president Bea Bruske said there were “no mechanisms for unions to track how much hospitality a public office holder consumes at one of our meetings, receptions, lunches, dinners and events.”

As a result, Bruske said, “we have no way to ensure public office holders don’t exceed the $40 allowed at a single event and never go over $80 in a single year. These clerical items will add significant administrative work to our organizations.”

Green also said he had heard concerns from labour movement officials that the new rules on hospitality “would likely change the manner in which many organizations approach their political advocacy work.”

“I can see a scenario where this could limit the ability of groups to meet with elected officials,” he said.

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.

Cities are on the front lines of climate adaptation. They manage the day-in, day-out impacts of warmer, wetter and more extreme weather.

That’s a big responsibility — and it isn’t cheap — but cities like Winnipeg aren’t exactly known for raking in revenue. While much of the conversation around climate adaptation focuses on what federal and provincial governments are doing, cities also have a role to play. Even on a tight budget, there are plenty of ways they can plan for a more resilient, less polluting future.

Winnipeg — dubbed one of the coldest cities on the planet — elected a new mayor and council Wednesday. Scott Gillingham, the city’s first new leader since 2014, will be in charge of deciding Winnipeg’s climate action policies for the next four years. 

Though climate change was not exactly the top issue of the election, with one candidate even saying “I am not a climate cultist” when asked how she would help the city achieve a net-zero future — the mayoral hopefuls each made promises that could help Winnipeg move towards a more sustainable future (if they happen, that is).

Gillingham’s plan for “a greener Winnipeg” promised to inject some urgency into Winnipeg’s existing climate action targets and shore up “capacity and infrastructure” for green services. He’s promised to support the city’s urban forest strategy and speed up tree planting; to bring Winnipeg into the green energy game by developing one megawatt of locally owned, locally used renewable energy generation by 2026; to find funding for building retrofits; and to set a target for electrifying the city’s car fleet. While he maintains Winnipeg will always be a car city, and has plans to widen highways, he’s also committed to adding bike lanes and buses to offer Winnipeggers more transportation choices.

Whether these promises will come to pass remains to be seen — decisions will require the cooperation of the new slate of councillors, too — but the campaign trail saw a series of plans, proposals and promises the new council will need to consider to give Winnipeg a fighting chance at a greener future.

From transit to trees, compost to potholes, here are six ways cities can play a part in developing climate resilience — and some of the ideas Gillingham and others raised during the election campaign.

1. Improve public transit

For many cities, transportation represents the largest source of carbon pollution. No election issue in Winnipeg has garnered as much attention as the battle for better transportation options.

Winnipeg has a serious car culture: 81 per cent of weekday trips are made by personal vehicle and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation make up just over half of Winnipeg’s overall emissions profile. The city’s climate action plan aims to cut vehicle use down to 50 per cent of trips, but addressing a car-dominant culture means making bussing, biking and walking more accessible.

“Transit is one of the most significant tools the next mayor and council can use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change,” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives researcher Niall Harney said at a release of the group’s alternative municipal budget in June.

Winnipeg’s transit ridership has been on the decline for decades and fell perilously off the cliff during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a Winnipeg Free Press-CTV News poll conducted by Probe Research, more than half of respondents think Winnipeg should be spending more on transit infrastructure.

Candidate promises: there were no shortage of promises aimed at making Winnipeg Transit safer, cleaner, more efficient and more electric. Several candidates pledged to fast track the city’s 2021 transit master plan, with an eye for adding rapid transit routes and improving bus frequency; others have promised to add more buses and replace diesel buses with electric ones. Rana Bokhari pledged to begin working on light-rail transit. Idris Adelakun pitched the idea of solar-powered, overhead rail cars.

Several candidates also pledged indirect ways to improve ridership: some suggested increasing police presence and security on buses, and Bokhari and Robert-Falcon Ouellette promised lower fares.

2. Encourage biking, walking and electric cars

Transit isn’t the only way to get commuters out of their cars — cities are looking to make room for more active transportation and electric vehicle infrastructure to help cut carbon pollution.

Many residents have long advocated for more protected and well-maintained lanes — crucial to making cycling more accessible. The city is aiming for an 800-kilometre active transportation network by 2030, though the city does not currently track the size of its existing network.

Some mayoral candidates have suggested Winnipeg will never lose its car-dominant culture, and are also looking for ways to make the shift to electric vehicles more appealing as the city works to help make the federal government’s “mandatory” zero-emission vehicle target a reality by 2035.

Candidate promises: Scott Gillingham promised to close gaps in the active-transportation network using frontage levy fees — a kind of property tax — to fund an extra $13 million in such projects over the next three years, and to develop a plan to electrify the municipal car fleet. Bokhari pledged to focus on active and public transportation routes. Rick Shone committed to electrifying Winnipeg’s car fleet and eliminating gas-powered lawn tools. Shaun Loney promised 500 charging stations by the end of the first term and a program to help Winnipeggers secure at-home vehicle chargers. Rick Shone, Idris Adelakun, Kevin Klein and Don Woodstock also made promises to help speed up the transition to electric cars while increasing funding for active transportation.

3. Invest in trees

Trees, parks and greenspace — what some call “natural infrastructure” — are among the strongest (and most cost-effective) tools in a city’s climate adaptation arsenal. Not only do they provide resilience just by existing — but the benefits grow over time, too. The shade, oxygen, carbon reduction, water absorption and riverbank stabilization that trees offer all increase as they get older, as do the heating and cooling savings for homeowners.

The decline of Winnipeg’s urban forest is palpable. The budget for the urban forest has been repeatedly slashed, trees are being cut down — be it for disease mitigation or construction and development — far faster than they’re replanted.

“We have a crisis in our urban forests,” Trees Winnipeg president Gerry Engel said last month.

Winnipeg’s next council will be tasked with voting on a new urban forest strategy, but so far there aren’t clear estimates for how much this plan could cost.

Candidate promises: all of the mayoral candidates signed onto a pledge from the Trees Please coalition, which asks for a commitment to replanting two public trees for every tree lost, bringing the pruning cycle back to the seven-year industry standard and incorporating better tree protection rules for construction projects. Klein also promised to add 1,000 acres of new city greenspace, while Shone promised to encourage more community gardens. Glen Murray proposed a “natural capital budget,” which would scrape money from road projects to be spent on urban forest protection and enhancement. Loney’s platform included a pitch for a “tree trust,” an independent organization that will “work closely with the city” to generate new revenue streams for the urban forest while hiring people who face employment barriers to work at the trust’s goals.

4. Reduce wasted energy

After transportation, the natural gas power used for heating and cooling buildings is Winnipeg’s next-largest greenhouse gas emitter, totalling almost a third of the city’s emissions profile — but the city has shied away from setting a target to curb that pollution. Winnipeg’s climate action plan projects the emissions from buildings will increase to eight per cent over benchmark levels by 2030.

Building codes are set by the provincial government — and Manitoba’s are woefully outdated. According to advocates from Sustainable Building Manitoba, the city’s responsibility is to greenlight the necessary funding for energy audits and commit to transforming energy consumption in the buildings it owns. (The city has a green building policy, but it hasn’t been amended in over a decade.)

The city has already begun exploring the possibility of using geothermal heat pumps to provide heating and cooling control in city-owned ice rinks, but there’s more work to be done.

Candidate promises: it wasn’t a sexy topic for city hall hopefuls, but some candidates made nods to the need for greener building policies at the municipal level.

Bokhari wanted all of the city’s buildings to reach net-zero emissions; Murray wanted to encourage more electric power in residential homes. Loney pledged to introduce geothermal heating loops as a power source for more than 40,000 homes by 2030 and incentivise energy retrofits. Shone wanted to see the city adopt Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) energy standards in all municipal buildings; Gillingham proposed transforming the agency that manages the city’s properties into a “green properties and green power” agency that would both produce local, renewable energy and retrofit existing buildings.

5. Respond to buckling roads

Infrastructure across the country is at risk, as hotter, wetter weather threatens to cause ongoing damage to pavement from coast-to-coast. While roads have been a hot topic in Winnipeg for years, the next council will need robust plans to prepare the city’s critical infrastructure for the more intense climate of the future.

Road design is evolving: City of Winnipeg engineers are testing new materials and pavement compositions they hope will be able to withstand more freeze-thaw cycles and more extreme heat, but it’s an expensive undertaking for a cash-strapped municipal government.

And while nearly all candidates have identified infrastructure — particularly road construction and pothole filling — as a policy priority, few have addressed the need for climate-focused solutions.

Candidate promises: there were no shortage of promises geared towards inflating the city’s road budget and speeding up work to restore Winnipeg’s damaged roads; some candidates promised to move forward with road-widening efforts (like Gillingham’s pledge to widen Kenaston Boulevard), others, like Jenny Motkaluk and Loney, promised to fix existing roads before spending money on new ones. Motkaluk also promised to look to jurisdictions with similar climates to Winnipeg to develop better road design. Loney committed to working with the provincial government to improve funding for road work in order to better protect the pavement in the long term.

6. Curb carbon pollution from trash

Organic waste like food scraps and yard waste make up between 40 and 60 per cent of the junk in Winnipeg’s landfill.

Tied off in plastic bags without oxygen, those materials break down and release methane — a greenhouse gas with 25 times the polluting power of carbon dioxide. How garbage is sorted, collected and left to decompose is a system entirely in the city’s control, but for years Winnipeg has merely toyed with the idea of compost collection, often arguing a green bin program would be too costly for residents.

Experts agree a compost service can help improve waste diversion rates, which could in turn help rein in the Brady Landfill’s status as Winnipeg’s second-largest single source of pollution.

“It’s not waste,” Susan Antler, executive director of the Toronto-based Compost Council of Canada, said in June. “It is a valuable resource that has to be put to good use.”

The city began a composting pilot program in fall 2020, which wrapped up this fall, but the incoming council will ultimately decide the future of garbage collection.

The trial compost service has been a smashing success, with 99 per cent of residents satisfied with the city’s proposed system, according to a city survey. All that’s standing in the way is budget allocation.

Candidate promises: Adelakun, Klein, Loney, Chris Clacio and Shone all promised they’d get compost infrastructure up and running. Gillingham stated he’d like to see analysis from the existing trial program before committing. Murray wanted to see a zero-waste future for Winnipeg, but didn’t talk about compost. Bohkari, Motkaluk, Ouellette and Woodstock did not made any campaign promises on a compost program.

Updated on Oct. 26, 2022, at 10:15 a.m. CT: This story was updated to correct the statement that Scott Gillingham promised to electrify the municipal car fleet by 2023. By the end of 2023, he has pledged to set a target date for the electrification of the municipal car fleet.

Updated on Oct. 27, 2022, at 10:15 a.m. CT: This story was updated to reflect the results of the 2022 Winnipeg municipal election.

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.