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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has introduced legislation to expand its “national interest” regime meant to speed up major projects, overhaul federal environmental scrutiny of industrial activity and consolidate Indigenous consultations.

In doing so, the government is largely moving ahead with sweeping proposals it made in May, and making them permanent, despite spending the summer hearing from a public concerned about exactly this: that the Liberals’ plan could sideline scientific expertise and concentrate political power.

Transport Minister and Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon introduced Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, in Parliament on Sept. 21. The nearly 250-page omnibus bill will entrench new powers to bypass normal government approval processes for projects like pipelines, highways and nuclear facilities, by removing a five-year time limit that was built into last year’s Building Canada Act.

The Building Canada Act first introduced a special designation to allow projects to skirt regular rules if the government deems them in the “national interest,” coming in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and threats to annex Canada. 

Asked by reporters on Wednesday to justify why the government was making its temporary powers permanent, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said Canadians “understand what we’re facing is unprecedented in Canada’s history.” 

“We need to make sure that we have the proper tools in the toolbox to favour economic security in our country,” he said.

The government claims the bill will “bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to infrastructure project reviews” while maintaining “strong environmental safeguards” and upholding Indigenous Rights. 

One of the key changes in the bill is to force all projects subject to federal reviews through a one-year timeframe for approval or rejection, compressing the time to examine things like environmental impacts into a matter of months.

“If you’re going to say no — decide it within a year,” is how Carney put it on Tuesday, addressing criticism of the bill on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

But this shortened timeline is one of many proposals Canadians have been cautioning Ottawa against since it was first made last May, warning that such fast-tracking could create conditions incompatible with the time and space necessary to properly assess big projects. 

The government received more than 26,000 emails and over 40 written submissions on its spring proposals from provinces, territories, Indigenous groups, industry representatives, environmental organizations, academics and think-tanks, according to a summary report published earlier this month.

While much of the feedback was broadly supportive of the effort to speed up approval of major projects and cut down on inefficient government processes, there was also “widespread agreement that reform should not come at the expense of environmental protection or Indigenous Rights,” the report noted.

In particular, Canadians expressed a “recurring concern” around the concentration of decision-making authority in a single minister, or in a small group of powerful people. 

“Many cautioned that increased ministerial or Cabinet discretion could weaken accountability, increase politicization, reduce predictability, and diminish the role of independent scientific, technical, environmental, and Indigenous expertise,” the report stated.

Meanwhile, Indigenous groups worried the changes could undermine reconciliation and limit their ability to assert their constitutional rights within their territories, warning of potential lawsuits.

After tabling its bill, the government received praise from business groups for taking steps to attract investment and boost the economy. 

Business Council of Canada president and CEO Goldy Hyder urged Parliament to “pass the legislation quickly to safeguard the interests of Canadians and rebuild the country’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.” The Western Business Coalition welcomed the one-year timeline for reviews, among other changes.

The changes also come after months of intense lobbying from the oil and gas industry to “simplify” project reviews and commit to much shorter deadlines for approvals.

Starting in 2025, oil and gas executives and lobby groups launched a public campaign pressuring Carney to “unwind the past decade” of environmental and energy policy, complaining that the current system was “impeding” fossil fuel growth.

The bill also follows regulatory changes Carney’s government made early in September to remove certain oilsands facilities and fossil fuel power plants from federal assessments.

Other groups have expressed dismay that the government was moving ahead despite public concerns of overreach. 

The environmental advocacy group Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement said a one-year timeline is “incompatible with the assessment of complex, large-scale projects” that often involve big risks to watersheds, wildlife habitat and communities. 

Such projects generally require long-term studies and analysis of cumulative impacts — not to mention meaningful public input and Indigenous consultations.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak warned Carney against “abusing” his powers to speed the bill through Parliament without adequate debate and consultations. 

The national chief said the government should be open to incorporating amendments to the bill offered by First Nations leaders.

So what else is in Bill C-39? Here’s what you need to know.

Moving pipeline and nuclear reviews away from an environment agency

The legislation takes federal reviews of pipelines, nuclear facilities and power lines out of the hands of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, a federal body that reports to the environment minister and is meant to ensure project designs protect Indigenous Rights and the environment.

Instead, pipeline projects will be reviewed by the Canada Energy Regulator, an agency of the Crown that reports to the energy minister and oversees construction and operation of certain pipelines and power lines.

For nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which also reports to the energy minister, will carry out assessments.

The government said “diverse stakeholders” had expressed support for the move and that environmental, health and Indigenous considerations would continue to be “addressed with rigour.”

Yet making the energy regulator the sole assessor of pipeline projects was one proposal where the public, through “advocacy campaigns distributed through civic engagement platforms and petitions,” had “consistently emphasized concern,” according to the feedback report.

Indigenous representatives also asked the government to hold the energy and nuclear regulators “to the same standard” as the Impact Assessment Agency.

They asked that Indigenous Peoples be involved in updating the laws that govern these agencies, so they’re consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is meant to uphold their “free, prior and informed consent.” 

In 2021 Canada passed a law to embed that declaration at the federal level.

Taking ‘national interest’ projects a step further

Another idea that elicited major unease from the public was the creation of federal “economic zones” where certain projects could be “pre-approved.” 

Carney’s new legislation rebrands these as “regions of national interest.” Once designated, certain projects inside the region would benefit from the ability to bypass normal approval processes, just like “national interest” projects.

The type of “regions” the government is considering are wide-reaching: a telecommunications network, an industrial area or an “energy production” area are all in play, it said. The region doesn’t even have to be currently used — it could be picked for “future development needs.” 

The first step would be to conduct a regional assessment through the Impact Assessment Agency, which the government said would measure the “cumulative effects of current and foreseeable activities in the area” and involve Indigenous consultations over things like impacts, boundaries and “culturally sensitive areas.”

Then a federal minister will recommend whether to list the region as in the “national interest.” If it does, projects will be “considered pre-approved” and be given a list of conditions.

Kerrie Blaise, founder and lawyer at the nonprofit Legal Advocates for Nature’s Defence, warned in a statement that the Ring of Fire mining and development region on Treaty 9 territory in northern Ontario could be designated as a “region of national interest.”

A group made up of representatives from 15 First Nations and the Impact Assessment Agency are in the midst of a regional assessment of development in the Ring of Fire area.

“Effectively ‘pre-approving’ mining projects within the Hudson-James Bay Lowlands — where the Ring of Fire is proposed — risks irreparable harm to pristine rivers, globally significant carbon stores, refuges for wildlife and species at risk and the Indigenous Peoples who call this region home,” Blaise said.

The regional designation follows a similar process for designating individual projects in the “national interest” that was established in last year’s Building Canada Act.

That process allows the government to automatically grant all federal approvals at the same time, following consultations.

Since passing the law, the government has moved to formally designate four projects as in the “national interest” — a new oil pipeline to the west coast, a nuclear waste depot in Ignace, Ont., the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 in Vancouver and the Mackenzie Valley Highway in the Northwest Territories. 

Many more projects are being considered for the designation by the Major Projects Office, a body run out of the central government agency that supports the prime minister and Cabinet.

A streamlined impact assessment process and the option of earlier project starts

Currently, the Impact Assessment Agency produces a project review to be considered by the environment minister, who then issues a decision on whether it should move forward. 

Other ministers who oversee departments with expertise in different fields, such as fisheries, still have to issue permits for the project after that decision is made, as part of separate processes, which the government says has made the overall project approval process take five years or more.

The new bill would empower the environment minister to issue a decision statement that comes with all required permits issued concurrently from different departments — and all of this happening within a year. 

As well, the environment minister can authorize some work to begin on a project before its Impact Assessment Agency review is completed, if this is deemed in the public interest.

Consolidating Indigenous consultations, making climate one consideration among many

The bill mentions “climate” five times, but vaguely: it’s one of many considerations officials must weigh when deciding on projects like pipelines, power lines or regions of “national interest.” 

The project’s effects on the government’s climate change commitments are among them, but there are no specific dealbreakers, such as an amount of heat-trapping emissions that might trigger a rejection, for example.

Others include “the interests and concerns of the Indigenous Peoples of Canada,” Indigenous Knowledge, scientific information, environmental effects, safety and security, health, social and economic effects, “the existence of actual or potential markets” for pipelines and their “economic feasibility,” and the financial resources of the applicant.

The bill also moves to centralize federal consultations with Indigenous groups by establishing a new “Crown Consultation Hub” within the Impact Assessment Agency, though the energy and nuclear regulators will still oversee their own.

Changes to transportation, navigable waters and fisheries laws

The bill would create a new “National Trade Corridors Council” that would monitor the movement of goods and provide advice to the transport minister on “disruptions.” 

It gives the transport minister new powers to authorize exemptions to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act for dumping materials into waterways. Materials that are currently banned from dumping include sawdust, wood scraps and waste.

As well, some companies would be allowed to harm fish and fish habitat by paying a fee to an environmental damages fund to “offset” it.

The bill also allows the labour minister to end a work stoppage if the government believes that to be in the “national interest.” Labour leaders say that infringes upon Canadians’ right to strike.

Greenpeace Canada dubbed Bill C-39 the “Bulldoze Nature Bill.” 

In a statement, nature and biodiversity campaigner Salomé Sané said, “Carney’s government is locking us into a short-sighted strategy in which decisions about workers’ health and rights, living ecosystems — from rivers, forests to grasslands and communities — are subordinated to a logic of speed and profit, not care and protection.”

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.

Editor’s note: Go here to read The Narwhal’s story on the backlash that followed this investigation.

Alberta is so determined to usher in a wave of AI data centres and increase oil and gas production that it is considering rewriting legislation and creating government-owned corporations that would force private companies to invest in natural gas pipeline expansions — or allow the government to build and operate those pipelines itself — according to a document leaked to The Narwhal. It’s also willing to pay for any legal challenges that follow. 

The document — labelled a “cabinet report” and bearing the Alberta government logo — contains a broad swath of recommendations it indicates were prepared for the Energy and Minerals Ministry led by Minister Brian Jean, and says it was scheduled to be presented to a high-level cabinet policy committee on Sept. 10.

The document says private ownership of natural gas transmission pipelines is throttling growth and that “escalatory and direct measures are now required,” especially as “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyper-scale data centre capital and other investors.”

The document notes Alberta risks losing investment from AI data centre companies if it can’t come up with “speed-to-market” solutions.

According to the document, the government has been in talks with TC Energy, which owns and operates Alberta’s main natural gas pipeline system, since 2024 in an attempt to force the company to invest in new pipeline capacity, but the company refuses to build based on “speculative demand.” TC Energy did not respond to detailed questions.

Talks with the company stalled, according to the document, after the company pitched a plan that would involve the province assuming more financial liability for the pipeline system and forcing higher rates on those who use it. 

“Discussions continued until 2026 and escalated with the premier’s involvement,” reads the document. “Extensive discussions with TC Energy [have] produced no viable solutions to date.”

The document is critical of TC Energy’s track record, saying the company’s “underinvestment in [natural gas] pipeline capacity has caused a market failure in the natural gas sector leaving key growth regions unable to access gas,” calling the result a “dysfunctional natural gas pipeline network.”

The document was leaked to The Narwhal by a government official whose identity is being kept confidential. The Narwhal has verified they are in a position that would likely have access to such a document. The Narwhal has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of the document, but Alberta’s lobbyist registry confirms TC Energy has been in talks with government officials regarding “increased support for gas market access,” as well as discussions on “strategic natural gas initiatives.”

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

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

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

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

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

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

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

Detailed questions sent to the premier’s office, including for confirmation of details in the document, were sent to the press secretaries for the premier and the ministers of affordability and utilities, energy and minerals, jobs, economy, trade and immigration, and treasury board and finance. There was no response by publication time. 

There was also no response to an email and phone call to Vitor Marciano, the chief of staff to the energy minister.

Late Friday afternoon, following the morning publication of this story, the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean sent a statement to The Narwhal saying “Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions.”

“An increasing number of project proponents across a variety of industries have raised concerns about accessing industrial quantities of natural gas in several regions of Alberta,” it added. “We are working with industry, including the natural gas infrastructure owners, to better understand these issues and identify practical solutions that support future growth and investment.”

According to the document, the full slate of proposals for cabinet consideration include taking regulatory control for the pipeline transmission network operated by TC Energy away from the federal Canada Energy Regulator, creating a Crown corporation that would guide pipeline construction based on government forecasting, and another Crown corporation that would oversee, or build and operate, its own pipelines. 

That would give the government the power to control some private investment decisions, including directing companies to build pipelines, and it could also make the government a direct competitor of companies such as TC Energy. 

The document argues the moves are necessary to rapidly build natural gas pipeline capacity to help increase oil and gas production and spur data centre growth. The government’s data centre strategy explicitly encourages the use of natural gas for power generation. 

Since the release of that strategy, the government has restricted AI data centre access to the provincial grid until 2028 because there is not enough power to fuel demand and keep the lights on. Developers are required to build their own power supply, which is currently restricted to natural gas power plants.

Albertans could be on the hook for hundreds of millions — or billions — to help support power for AI data centres: document

The moves could cost Albertans. 

The document is clear one of the main drivers of the plan, in addition to increasing the province’s oil and gas production, is attracting AI data centres to the province. “Alberta’s ability to attract and retain data centre investment depends on reliable access to natural gas service,” the document says. 

The recommended changes would result in “significant legal and cost impacts for the Government of Alberta,” according to the document, as well as likely result in “increases for utility ratepayers.”

The document notes Albertans may be “sensitive” to what it calls “any change in perceived affordability.”

The preliminary estimated cost of the proposed changes, including the planning and creation of Crown corporations and potential ensuing legal battles, could exceed $162 million, according to estimates in the document, but that does not include possible infrastructure costs.

The document estimates building a pipeline to meet government expectations could cost as much as $6 billion. The capacity from that new pipeline could provide enough gas for six gigawatts of power generation for data centres, according to the document. A recently rejected AI data centre near Olds, Alta., would have required a 1.4-gigawatt power plant and used as much power each day as the City of Edmonton.

The total cost includes anticipated litigation from TC Energy and other companies, including concerns over “significant claims for compensation” for “alleged expropriation of valuable contractual rights.” 

The document warns First Nations could also initiate lawsuits. 

The moves could also make things more expensive for residents and businesses by driving up the price of natural gas, according to the document.

“While low prices benefit customers (Albertans and industrial users), they limit provincial royalty revenues and can discourage natural gas investment by reducing producer revenues,” the document reads. 

“Increased natural gas demand could contribute to higher costs for households, businesses and gas-intensive industries, which could deflect stakeholder support.”

The document also notes “potential disproportionate impacts on seniors and rural residents can be mitigated by monitoring affordability and exploring mitigation measures specific to households and small businesses.”

The government’s aim is to almost double natural gas prices to support and expand production, which would increase the cost of electricity generation by up to 25 per cent, based on calculations in the document. 

It’s unclear exactly what that could mean for Albertans’ power bills, but those costs could be passed down to Albertans, who the document warns could be upset about government spending and increased costs. 

A recent analysis from the Pembina Institute, estimates the recently announced Meta data center near Edmonton could add $270 to $460 to electricity bills each year.

The document suggests government messaging could sell the plan to Albertans to “help strengthen social licence.”

Have something to share about Alberta’s push for more data centres and oil production? Send us a story tip.

Updated on Sept. 13, 2026, at 2:11 p.m. MT: This article was updated to include a statement from the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean. The statement was received after publication of the article. No response was received to questions sent in advance of publication.

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

When temperatures drop, people who rent their homes in B.C. have a right to stay warm. Heating is considered an essential service under the province’s Residential Tenancy Act, something landlords must supply.

But when extreme heat hits, it’s a different story. As temperatures soared last month, smashing record highs across B.C., landlords in most parts of the province held on to the power to prohibit their tenants from installing and using air conditioners.

“It’s in my lease agreement,” Nadine Nakagawa, a city councillor in New Westminster, says. 

Summary

• B.C. doesn’t have a provincial law addressing maximum temperatures in rental units.
• In recent years, a number of B.C. municipalities have voted to change their bylaws to protect tenants from extreme heat.
• Local politicians and advocates say better rebates and other support for renters’ ‘right to cool’ must come from the provincial government.

Safety concerns are often used to justify air conditioning bans in rental units, especially in older buildings where electrical systems might struggle in high-demand situations. But that’s not always the case; the building Nakagawa lives in was built in 2019.

Nakagawa knows some of her neighbours flout the air conditioner prohibition, running the risk of eviction when temperatures rise. It’s a risk she argues they shouldn’t have to take.

“Individual tenants being brave really can’t be the answer in a housing market that does make people extremely precarious.”

Cooling devices — air conditioners or, increasingly, heat pumps — aren’t just a matter of comfort. As climate change increases the likelihood of heat waves and hotter summers, access to cool spaces is becoming a matter of life and death. Only 45 per cent of B.C. households report having an air conditioner — well below the national rate of 68 per cent, according to Statistics Canada. And while more than three-quarters of homeowners have access to an air conditioner, just over half of tenants said the same. 

In late June 2021, the Pacific Northwest heat dome made the lack of cooling devices a deadly reality for many British Columbians for the first time. Over one sweltering week, temperatures in many parts of the province approached 40 C. The heat caused the deaths of 619 people, 98 per cent of whom died indoors. Many of them were seniors without access to adequate cooling in their homes, according to B.C.’s chief coroner. 

Many also lived in low-income neighbourhoods where apartment buildings tend to be older. This often means rent is more affordable, but comes with leaky windows, poor ventilation, dated electrical systems and an absence of cooling devices — characteristics that leave their residents vulnerable to extreme weather.

In the years since the heat dome, the B.C. government has taken some steps to protect people from extreme heat, including funding for air conditioning and ventilation in seniors’ homes and long-term care facilities and access to free air conditioners for a small number of vulnerable people. A 2024 update to the BC Building Code requires every unit in new residential buildings to have one room where the temperature does not exceed 26 C, even during summer heat. 

But most B.C. tenants don’t live in new buildings and the province has yet to address their “right to cool,” as policies focused on protecting people from extreme heat are sometimes called. The lack of provincial action has pushed some councillors, including Nakagawa, to tackle the issue at the municipal level. 

“We have known for a number of years that we are going to be having hotter and hotter summers,” she says. “In the next heat dome, we cannot say that we did not know and didn’t expect it. That’s why we have to take action right now.”

Who pays to keep B.C. renters cool?

So far, six B.C. municipalities, including New Westminster, have voted to change their bylaws to bar landlords from banning the use of cooling devices in rented homes. As of this month, that list includes Victoria. Emily Rogers, director of operations with the Together Against Poverty Society, calls the decision “a move in the right direction.”

“It is long overdue and necessary to prevent heat-related injury and death,” she says. “I’ve had this public conversation every year since 2021.”

The society helps renters living in poverty navigate B.C.’s Residential Tenancy Act. When it comes to making the right to cool official, Rogers argues that even though the act currently lacks specific temperature requirements around extreme heat, it already implies rental homes should not get dangerously hot.

“It’s already the landlord’s responsibility to provide safe housing conditions and in this new era of climate change, that includes the right to cooling,” Rogers says.

Many landlords in B.C. are well aware “that cooling is a huge issue,” David Hutniak, CEO of LandlordBC, says.

Our concern is that some of the solutions suggested in these bylaws are ignoring the complexity of the problem,” he told The Narwhal. The organization is working with its members to ensure they understand the new bylaws popping up in municipalities.

“Right now, there’s a fair bit of confusion and uncertainty on the part of owners,” he says.

Hutniak points out that some buildings will require significant electrical upgrades to handle the power demand. Those may be difficult to do quickly and require large investments by building owners, he adds. That’s where planning becomes key. LandlordBC runs the Rental Apartment Retrofit Accelerator, a program that helps landlords plan for energy-efficiency upgrades and access rebates and other financial support from governments.

“We’re chipping away at it here as best we can,” Hutniak says. “It’s a complex issue, but I think over time here we can have some reasonable solutions that will make sense for everybody.”

Provincial support is limited. Free portable air conditioners are only available to people enrolled in home care or mental health and substance use programs, and even then require a recommendation letter from the local health authority. 

In 2025, B.C. broadened its heat pump rebates to include renters and people living in strata buildings. But installing a heat pump as a tenant is complicated and costly, which can be a deterrent. 

Interested renters have to get permission from their landlord. Even landlords that agree might not be willing to pay costs not covered by the rebate — and B.C. allows landlords to pass along the costs of significant upgrades and repairs to their tenants via rent increases. Yet, according to B.C.’s energy ministry, “Since the heat pump is a permanent fixture installed in the building, it becomes part of the property and stays with the unit even if the tenant moves out.” 

Victoria city councillor Susan Kim lives in a rental apartment that will have to lift its ban on cooling devices after the city amended its bylaws. But after reviewing the heat pump rebate program, she decided it wasn’t worth approaching her landlord about it. “You’re subsidizing the landlord by building their equity as well as putting your own sweat equity and labour into it,” Kim says.

Landlords who opt to invest in heat pumps or air conditioners can apply to the Residential Tenancy Branch to raise rents beyond the annual allowable increase. In recent decisions, the branch has allowed the full costs to be recouped. For one multi-unit building, the $145,000 cost of heat pumps led to an additional $41 in monthly rent per unit. In that case, the landlord said the “heat-related death of an elderly resident during a heat wave” spurred the installation.

In another case, the $5,775 cost of an air conditioner for a single unit led to an extra $62 per month.

Rogers points out that income assistance in B.C. is just $1,060 per month to cover all living costs. Even purchasing a $200 air conditioner isn’t feasible for these tenants, she says. 

“Most folks that I speak with are telling their kids that they had enough to eat through the day because they don’t want their kid to feel bad about them not eating dinner with the family, so that the kids can have enough to eat that night.”

Not every method of addressing extreme heat in rental buildings is expensive 

New Westminster adopted a bylaw prohibiting bans on cooling devices in 2025. This spring, the city pushed its right to cool practices further. Now all landlords — not just those with new buildings — must meet the BC Building Code standard that one room in every unit stay below 26 C overnight.

The bylaw sprang from a motion Nakagawa co-sponsored with the aim of putting the onus for maintaining safe temperatures “on the building owner, on the landlord … rather than the tenant.”

The new rule doesn’t dictate how landlords address the issue. Shades and awnings, window glazing, ventilation improvements or even painting the roof white could help bring a building into compliance. So-called passive cooling measures can help reduce or slow indoor temperature gains and have the added benefit of requiring little to no electricity, cutting costs for tenants and working even during power outages.

Those kinds of upgrades, Nakagawa says, could yield benefits year-round. 

“If you have better insulation, it might help it be warmer in the winter as well.”

So far, the new bylaw hasn’t resulted in much conflict with landlords, New Westminster Mayor Patrick Johnstone says. 

“I actually expected there would be more pushback; I’ve been quite surprised.”

It’s up to tenants to alert the city about non-compliance, Johnstone says, and the city’s focus is on working with landlords to make sure their rental units meet the new temperature standard, rather than handing out fines.

“I think by being proactive and being a partner with landlords, we can actually bring people into compliance,” he says.

Nagakawa worries the new bylaw won’t address the problem of pricey appliances or retrofit costs being passed on to tenants. She thinks the province should get rid of that option, at least for upgrades aimed at preventing dangerous indoor temperatures.

“At the end of the day, I also have to live with the idea that I don’t want more tenants in my municipality to die in the next heat dome.”

The right to cool needs to be addressed at the provincial level in B.C. 

Everyone The Narwhal spoke with agreed the issue needs to be dealt with by the B.C. government. Provincial legislation could protect tenants from rent increases related to costs landlords incur to keep buildings cool, while providing support for landlords that need it. 

“If the province is using its own powers to put this in place, they can also use their own powers to intervene and make it doable,” Kim says. 

One approach could be to alter the Residential Tenancy Act to make adequate cooling an essential service, just like heating. The Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs did not answer when asked whether it is considering altering the act to protect tenants from extreme heat. A question about whether the ministry is considering preventing landlords from passing along the installation costs also went unanswered.

In lieu of answering The Narwhal’s specific questions, the ministry sent a statement, saying it is in the process of developing additional building code requirements “to address climate change adaptation and mitigation in existing buildings and result in new standards by 2030.”

Hutniak is hopeful that the issue is getting needed attention, but sees downsides to the “piecemeal approach” currently happening. “Because of the scale and scope of the challenge, it will require senior levels of government to be more involved, strategically and in terms of some financial support,” he says. “This is just not something that can get solved through municipalities passing bylaws.”

Until other levels of government are ready to take action, Nakagawa says municipalities can be proactive about understanding tenant needs and local vulnerabilities. “There’s a whole bunch of steps they could take, if they’re not feeling quite ready to bring in the same bylaw that we’ve brought,” she says. For example, the Victoria capital regional district has created a map to help residents understand where heat risks are highest. 

New Westminster has been collecting data on heat vulnerability among renters, part of a move to beef up its tenant protections in recent years, including creating an anti-eviction bylaw. It’s been using annual fire inspections as a chance to gather data about which buildings have “heat challenges,” Johnstone says, after which emergency services and community organizations then helped “identify vulnerable people who were in those buildings.”

But the mayor agrees that the issue is bigger than New Westminster. “We can’t have, across the province, 160 municipalities all with different rules making it up as they go along,” Johnstone says. 

“Ultimately, this is a healthcare concern. Ultimately, this is a housing concern and ultimately, this should be regulated at the provincial level.”

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

Summary

• Residents say odours from an oil and gas waste disposal facility in Rolla, B.C., have disrupted their lives for more than a decade
• Energy Minister Adrian Dix, whose ministry oversees the BC Energy Regulator, says inspections and air quality monitoring give a “high degree of confidence” there are no adverse health effects
• Environment Minister Tamara Davidson, whose ministry found multiple compliance issues after inspecting the facility in December 2024, declined to be interviewed or provide comment

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Residents of Rolla, B.C., want to know what is causing the strong chemical odours that have been giving them headaches, literally and figuratively, for more than 10 years. Brenda Delamont, Dave Armstrong and some of their neighbours have been contacting the BC Energy Regulator and the B.C. government about a nearby waste disposal facility, which serves the oil and gas industry, since around 2013. 

But repeated requests from the residents and The Narwhal to both the regulator and relevant provincial ministries have yet to yield answers. On March 16, Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix told The Narwhal air quality monitoring done by the company provides “a high degree of confidence that no adverse health effects are expected for workers or nearby residents.”

That does little to assuage residents’ concerns.

“We still don’t know what it’s from,” Delamont said of the smells that waft onto their properties, which are about a kilometre away from the waste disposal facility operated by Calgary-based Secure Waste Infrastructure Corp. “We’ve never gotten an answer as to why you smell the smells, what the smells are from and how toxic or noxious they are over the long term or short term.”

Across B.C., there are 63 waste disposal facilities like the one in Rolla, nearly 15 per cent of which are operated by Secure. Dozens more facilities across the province store related hazardous waste from oil and gas operations.

The Rolla facility is licensed by B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Parks and the BC Energy Regulator to handle a variety of hazardous waste products, including hydrogen sulfide, a flammable and highly toxic gas. Some of the waste is treated on site, then injected into underground wells. Other materials are sent to different facilities for disposal.

Before construction began, Armstrong recalls meeting with Secure representatives who told him smells wouldn’t be a problem. They said the facility would include a “state-of-the-art vapour collection and recovery system to ensure no fugitive emissions and prevent odours.” But in the years since then, Armstrong estimates he has called the BC Energy Regulator hundreds of times to report noxious chemical smells that permeate his home, sometimes causing headaches.

Delamont has also made many calls to the regulator about odours at her home, which lies just down the road from Armstrong’s. Both residents say little has been done to address their concerns.“I get the impression of feeble attempts,” Armstrong said of the regulator’s limited response to their concerns.

No fines issued to Secure after B.C. ministry inspection found multiple issues

The Narwhal sent detailed questions about Delamont and Armstrong’s concerns to Secure via the company’s online contact form and by email. In an emailed response, Secure said it “takes community concerns seriously and works closely” with provincial regulators. The company’s response did not answer any of the specific questions sent by The Narwhal.

“When concerns are raised, we investigate them and continue working with regulators and nearby residents to address them,” the company said.

The BC Energy Regulator inspected Secure’s facility 33 times in 2025, according to the company, and found no compliance issues. Meanwhile, a Ministry of Environment inspection conducted in December 2024 found several issues with Secure’s operations, including that the facility accepted thousands more litres of toxic waste than its permit allowed. A warning letter issued after the inspection also noted Secure had removed some of the equipment used to treat waste and installed new equipment not covered by its permit.

No fines were issued to Secure as a result of the inspection. When The Narwhal asked the Environment Ministry whether Secure had addressed the compliance and permit issues identified 15 months prior, the ministry’s emailed response did not directly answer the question.

“Secure was instructed to verify their permit aligns with Hazardous Waste Regulation emission specifications,” the Environment Ministry said in a statement to The Narwhal. Because of last year’s findings, the facility “will be prioritized for reinspection in the next fiscal year,” the ministry said in its email.

Delamont is frustrated but not surprised by the lack of resolution a year after the warning letter was issued.

“It’s hard because nothing ever really seems to come of things,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a site with infractions already, you would think that within a year you could check up on the things that you found them non-compliant on.”Delamont works as a chef in a seniors care facility. In her line of work, she says, facilities that don’t comply with regulations can quickly be shut down.

‘A very significant effort has been made’: Adrian Dix

Ahead of the publication of a previous story on the Rolla facility on March 11, The Narwhal requested comment from Dix and Environment Minister Tamara Davidson, whose ministries are responsible for permitting the facility. 

After delays and much back and forth, staff from Davidson’s ministry did not agree to an interview.

Dix’s office offered a phone interview on March 16. During that conversation, Dix said the BC Energy Regulator has conducted three inspections of Secure’s Rolla facility so far this year, on top of 36 in 2025 and 49 in 2024.

“The BC Energy Regulator has not only been, but will continue to be, responsive to the concerns,” he said, describing the regulator’s response to date as “comprehensive.”“That doesn’t mean that every time a person makes a complaint, they get satisfaction from their perspective, but certainly, a very significant effort has been made.”

Dix did not directly answer when asked whether the BC Energy Regulator can inform residents about the causes of the odours they have been reporting for years. He did mention air quality testing done by Secure at the facility that found all “chemicals of interest” — including volatile organic compounds, benzene and hydrogen sulfide — were only present at low levels and within regulatory guidelines.“These findings provide a high degree of confidence that no adverse health effects are expected for workers or nearby residents under the conditions observed during the monitoring period,” Dix said.Secure emailed copies of an undated air quality monitoring report to Armstrong and Delamont on March 16. The findings in the report reflect Dix’s comments: none of the chemicals tested for were found at levels beyond regulatory and health guidelines.

The air quality monitoring was done over the course of a week, according to the report, but the lack of detail left Armstrong wondering about the level of activity taking place at the facility during the monitoring period.

“There’s so many variables that that whole report is just hokey to me,” Armstrong said. “It’s not all the time, but when we get the odours in their yard, they are strong.”

Armstrong expressed disappointment at the lack of answers about what is causing the troubling smells.

“I’m just hoping we can win something out of this,” he said. “It’s been 15 years of no results.”

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 Arctic has been in the news a lot lately. Between the increased geopolitical interest in Greenland, claims over sovereignty, resource exploitation and the devastating impacts of climate change, the region has become a sentinel for global change.

But away from these headlines, a quieter crisis is unfolding that threatens Canada’s role in global environmental science, law and policy: the dismantling of research teams at the department responsible for Canada’s environmental policies and programs. The federal government’s plan to reduce the public service by 15 per cent over three years means that more than 800 positions at Environment and Climate Change Canada will be cut.

As an environmental scientist who has been involved in the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program since 2016 and an interdisciplinary legal scholar focused on water governance in Canada, we have seen how science can shape policy. For decades, Environment and Climate Change Canada research scientists have been integral to the work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, a working group that provides advice and assessments to the Arctic Council.

This intergovernmental group comprised of Indigenous Peoples, Arctic states and non-Arctic states with observer status is the major platform for protecting the environment and coordinating sustainable development initiatives in the Arctic.

Scientists at Environment and Climate Change Canada have played a leading role in more than 20 international reports on persistent organic pollutants and mercury. In fact, department researchers have acted as the largest group of chapter leads in these global assessments since the 1990s.

Budget cuts at the department raise concerns about how governments will develop effective policies and laws that rely upon scientific research.

The risks from budget cuts

Many of the scientists who lead projects on the long-term trends of toxins in Arctic wildlife face cuts or might lose their jobs entirely. Department scientists are often the ones to identify and assess “chemicals of emerging Arctic concern” — newly discovered chemical threats to human and environmental health that scientists are only just beginning to understand.

Losing the scientists who lead and interpret contaminant data in Arctic wildlife will take much more from Canada than scientific expertise; we risk losing our ability to understand and effectively react to chemical threats and their potential environmental and health impacts.

Data collection for unique monitoring datasets spanning up to 50 years is at risk of being discontinued. Even more concerning is the potential loss of national tissue archives if monitoring and research projects are cut. Contaminant data in Canadian wildlife have been instrumental to the listing of toxins under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, an international treaty to control the global production and use of particularly hazardous chemicals.

Similarly, monitoring for mercury in Arctic air and biota is an important part of the rationale for the Minamata Convention, a global treaty designed to protect human and environmental health from mercury contamination.

In many ways, these global agreements exist because Canadian data, produced by Environment and Climate Change Canada scientists, proved that chemicals used thousands of kilometres away end up in the bodies of Arctic wildlife and Indigenous Peoples who rely on healthy wildlife for food security and cultural identity and practices.

These international treaties set out the norms, legal principles and regulatory schemes that have been incorporated into Canadian law. They support the risk assessment and management of many toxic chemicals under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Losing these samples and monitoring programs would set back Canadian and global contaminant research and reinforce criticisms that Canada is a laggard in environmental law and policy.

Risk for Indigenous communities

Budget cuts could also intimately impact the daily lives of those living in the Arctic and raise questions of environmental justice. Indigenous communities in the Arctic face higher exposure to many toxins than other Canadians due to their reliance on foods like fish, belugas and seals.

Despite global efforts, blood mercury levels in many Inuit communities remain higher than the general Canadian population. Furthermore, concentrations of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, also known as “forever chemicals,” are consistently higher in these communities than in the south.

Without ongoing research, we risk creating a vacuum in environmental governance and law. Current legislation, like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, aims to protect vulnerable populations and uphold the right to a healthy environment and environmental justice. But we cannot uphold these rights if we stop measuring how contaminants are impacting the health of the environment, food and water of the populations most affected by these chemicals.

Across Canada, the cuts undermine effective chemical management. Canada’s chemical management plan depends heavily on the expert assessment of government scientists. This expert-based risk assessment has enabled the discovery and monitoring of new chemical risks with comparatively few bureaucratic hurdles. However, it also means that the proposed cuts are particularly devastating to this program.

If we remove the scientists the regulatory system depends on, the system breaks. This means that these proposed cuts could not only cost jobs and reduce scientific excellence in Canada, but also leave the health of Canadians and our environment less protected.

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

In 2019, B.C. unanimously passed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It was celebrated as a major step toward working with First Nations in a better, more equal way.

But a court ruling earlier this month seems to be contributing to a change of heart for Premier David Eby. On Dec. 5, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled the government’s obligations under the Declaration Act are legally enforceable. Eby is now arguing judges shouldn’t be setting the province’s reconciliation agenda. And he says he is willing to change the law to make sure they can’t.

“The work we do in reconciliation is to empower people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, not to empower the courts,” Eby told attendees at a BC Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Dec. 10. 

“Last week’s court of appeal decision invites further and endless litigation,” he added. “It is the exact opposite of the direction we need to go: less certainty, not more; more conflict, not less.”

When the legislature resumes in the spring, Eby said the government will introduce amendments to the act to make things clear.

Merle Alexander, a lawyer who helped draft the Declaration Act, called the premier’s pledge to swiftly amend the first B.C. law co-developed with First Nations — one that passed into law with the full support of the legislature — troubling.

“[The Declaration Act] was a tacit agreement between the B.C. government and B.C. First Nations that the status quo wasn’t working and an agreement that we were going to change things together,” Alexander, a lawyer with Miller Titerle + Company, who specializes in Indigenous law, said.

“The idea that you could go back and unilaterally change some of its core purposes by yourself, with or without First Nations, to me, on the face of it, is extremely offensive.”

Cynthia Callison, a partner with Callison & Hanna Law who has advocated for First Nations in B.C. for 29 years, called Eby’s vow to alter the Declaration Act a knee-jerk reaction.

“Every time a court has acknowledged Indigenous Peoples’ rights or tried to encourage reconciliation between the Crown and First Nations, there’s always a backlash,” Callison, who is a member of the Tahltan Nation, said in an interview. “It’s something to be expected.”

What is UNDRIP and why does it matter?

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirms the inherent human rights of Indigenous Peoples worldwide. It acknowledges those who have suffered and continue to suffer persecution, genocide, cultural erasure, marginalization and disproportionate impacts from resource extraction and climate change. In 46 articles, the declaration covers a range of basic rights that represent the “minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being” of Indigenous Peoples.

In other words, UNDRIP and B.C.’s equivalent legislation, are an acknowledgement of the basic rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to “free, prior and informed consent” about decisions that affect their lives and well-being.

When B.C.’s Declaration Act was introduced, the government stressed this did not amount to a veto for First Nations on issues like resource development. Instead, the government described the act as “a path forward” for relations between First Nations and the province. The idea was the legislation would hold the government accountable, in law, to its stated commitments on reconciliation.

In 2021, it was Eby, in his former role as attorney general, who put forward a change to the province’s Interpretation Act, which gives courts guidance on how to apply provincial laws and statutes. At the time, Eby said the changes would make it “explicit that the province’s preferred approach” is to have laws and regulations interpreted in ways that align with the United Nations declaration.

That same year, the Canadian government passed its own law to use the declaration “as an international human rights instrument that can help interpret and apply Canadian law.”

Callison believes it will be difficult for the B.C. government to insulate its laws from being held to a widely recognized international standard, especially one that the federal government upholds.

“Whether or not it’s legislated, it’s still something that courts are able to use in decisions. Maybe they’re not bound to it, but they still can recognize those principles,” Callison said. “The reason why Indigenous people wanted it to be legislated, I think, was because then it was clear that the court could use that standard.”

We’re suing the RCMP to fight for press freedom

In November 2021, photojournalist Amber Bracken was arrested by the RCMP while on assignment for The Narwhal. So we launched a lawsuit to take a stand for press freedom. The trial recently concluded. Learn more.

The recent appeal court ruling concluded the Declaration Act has “immediate legal effect” on B.C.’s laws — not just the ones the province has decided to bring into alignment with the principles of UNDRIP.

“What the court did in the decision, unfortunately, is to say that at any time, any nation can come to court and apply to find a law invalid [under the United Nations declaration],” Eby said on Dec. 10. “And that was never the intention.”

But how a government hopes its legislation will be applied by the courts — as conveyed by ministers speaking in the legislature, for example — can only be secondary to the letter of the law, Alexander explained.

“The most important part of the interpretation is the literal words of the statute itself,” he said. 

Those laws lay out a process for legal reforms to be co-developed with First Nations, Alexander added, but don’t contain any language barring the courts from interpreting them.

What’s happened to date in the Gitxaała case?

The appeal court’s Dec. 5 decision was the result of a challenge to part of a 2023 B.C. Supreme Court ruling launched by the Gitxaała and the Ehattesaht First Nations. That ruling agreed with the nations’ claim that B.C.’s mineral claim staking regime did not fulfill the government’s obligations to consult with First Nations. It also concluded that B.C.’s Declaration Act was not legally enforceable, which is what the nations just successfully appealed.

Gitxaała hailed the appeal court’s ruling as “precedent setting.”

“Aligning all B.C. laws with the [United Nations] declaration and upholding the standard of free, prior and informed consent is the only pathway to the investor ‘certainty’ the mining sector seeks,” Gitxaała Chief Councillor Linda Innes said in a statement.

The case was brought forward by Gitxaała in 2021. Like many court cases that centre on infringement of Indigenous Rights, its scope was wide reaching — but its origins stemmed from environmental damages that occurred on Lax k’naga dzol (Banks Island) in 2015 and subsequent mineral claims staked there between 2018 and 2020. Banks Island, which Gitxaała refer to as their “bread basket,” is on B.C.’s northwest coast, south of the Skeena River estuary. 

B.C.’s Mineral Tenure Act is “colonial legislation” that dates back to the mid-1800s gold rush, the ruling stated. While the law, often called the free-entry system, has been updated and amended over the years, it still allowed for anyone to stake a claim on lands in B.C. without first asking permission from the landowner or First Nations. 

Callison described the appeal court’s ruling as a logical next step to address a legal infringement on Indigenous Rights that the province has been aware of for a long time.

“In this case, it’s quite obvious that this mineral tenure system, the free miner system, is inconsistent with Indigenous Peoples’ rights,” Callison said.

And fulfilling the requirements of the Gitxaała decision will create more certainty for First Nations and B.C.’s mining industry, Callison argued.

“They can’t complain that they don’t know what is culturally important to First Nations if it’s identified and if it’s been declared as a non-staking area.”

Naxginkw Tara Marsden, who works with the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, called the recent decision “pivotal.”

“A lot of our problems in resource management centre around these fundamental legislation like [the Mineral Tenure Act], where industry effectively gets unfettered access to the rights to resources,” she told The Narwhal. “But undoing the free-entry system, bolstered by the legal effect of UNDRIP, moves us away from that. It’s a paradigm shift, and can spill over into others.”

How is the political world reacting to the Gitxaała decision?

The appeal court decision on the Gitxaała case isn’t the only one troubling the premier. During his address at the luncheon, Eby called the appeal court ruling and the B.C. Supreme Court’s decision in the Cowichan Tribes case “deeply troubling.”

Eby, the one-time head of the BC Civil Liberties Association, slammed provincial judges for issuing “dramatic, overreaching and unhelpful” decisions he claimed could destabilize the provincial economy.

“It’s hard to understate the damage that could be done or has already been done to public support for the delicate, critical and necessary work we have to do with First Nations in a province that was almost entirely settled without treaties, and in a country that has Section 35 of the Constitution,” Eby warned. 

“While this work is essential to our success, it could also be the undoing of our province as a place to do business.” Amending the Declaration Act and the Interpretation Act will make the government’s intentions clear, Eby told the audience, and prevent future court decisions from potentially destabilizing economic development.

Alexander believes the premier’s plan could have the opposite effect, potentially triggering more court cases from First Nations and thereby creating more uncertainty for resource extraction and other industries in the long run, while also damaging the province’s relationship with First Nations.

“People have very fragile trust in the government of the day, but when they so intentionally change legislation to ensure that there’s no objective party reviewing how they perform reconciliation, it seems very insidious.”

This year, B.C. passed legislation to fast-track the North Coast transmission line, renewable energy projects and yet-to-be-defined “provincially significant projects.” The B.C. government admitted it had not fulfilled its consultation obligations before introducing the legislation, which many First Nations forcefully criticized.

Eby’s vow to amend the Declaration Act could even stiffer opposition from First Nations leaders, Alexander warned.

“It’s hard to know how damaging it will be to reconciliation, because, in truth, Premier Eby himself has damaged reconciliation in the province so tremendously in the last year, it’s hard to measure,” he said. “There’s a lot of burning bridges already.”

Updated Dec. 16, 2025, at 11:08 a.m. PT: This story was updated to correct the spelling of Cynthia Callison’s law firm, Callison & Hanna.

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.

Splashed across the website of nearly every conservation authority in Ontario is a warning about low water levels. 

For nearly 80 years, the provincial agencies have been tasked with protecting public health and safety related to the province’s watersheds. That means safeguarding local drinking water sources and working to reduce the risks from natural hazards like flooding, erosion and drought. As Ontario’s population has grown, they have also been responsible for regulating development to minimize those risks, issuing permits only to those who pay attention to sustainable construction and growth.

Over the last six years, the Doug Ford government has passed four bills that have drastically changed the rules governing the 36 conservation authorities’ ability to do this job — all to speed up development. Those changes have included reducing conservation authorities’ influence over development, weakening their ability to protect water quality and wetlands and having their decisions be overruled by the overseeing minister.

Each change has come with an argument of efficiency, and since then, nearly all conservation authorities have publicly reported permits are being reviewed faster. Still, some 19 months after the last set of changes was imposed, the government has delivered yet another watershed change: it is proposing to consolidate 36 agencies into seven.

On Oct. 31, Environment Minister Todd McCarthy said individual conservation authorities were “operating largely on their own, with fragmented and outdated data systems and a patchwork of standards and service delivery.” This, he said, had led to “unpredictable and inconsistent turnaround times” for development permit approvals. 

“This is holding back Ontario,” he said.

“Obviously, there’s a fair bit of whiplash or scar tissue, pick your metaphor,” one conservation authority official from northern Ontario said. The Narwhal spoke with 12 people at 12 authorities for this story, many of whom asked to keep their names confidential for fear of retribution from the government. 

According to most of the sources, the threat to consolidate conservation authorities has been “the worst-kept secret” for a long time. It’s been talked about since this government took office, especially as Ford has previously moved to consolidate health care, and is rumoured to be planning the same for school boards. The consistent emphasis on efficiency and rapid development has kept conservation authorities in the crosshairs, as they strived to meet the government pressures without losing focus on their mandate to preserve Ontario’s watersheds and protect the public.

Currently, 26 out of 36 conservation authorities have staff closely monitoring worryingly low water levels in rivers and lakes across the province, with some declaring near-drought conditions brought on by a lack of rain. They’re doing this while they also grapple with the impacts of consolidation.

Consolidation of conservation authorities would be ‘a drastic shift’ that may ‘slow approvals, create confusion’

Despite assurances from McCarthy that they will all still be able to do this core job, there is deep skepticism among conservation authorities based on a historically fraught relationship and a litany of recent Progressive Conservative policies that have endangered Ontario’s water, forests and land. In 2023, two watchdog reports on the Greenbelt scandal found the Ford government had prioritized developer requests over environmental and technical considerations.

“The government is right to want a conservation authority system that is more consistent, transparent and efficient, especially when it comes to supporting housing and economic growth,” Jonathan Scott, a councillor for the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury and chair of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority board, told The Narwhal. “There may be room for targeted, sensible consolidation in Ontario’s conservation system, but moving from 36 authorities to just seven would be a drastic shift.” 

Scott said the local environmental expertise in each individual authority is essential. “A merger of that scale could create a larger, more distant bureaucracy that is less responsive to local municipalities, developers and farmers — exactly the people who need timely service and value having a local municipal official or trusted member of staff they can call directly,” he said.

“Losing that connection could slow approvals, create confusion and ultimately have the opposite effect of what the government intends.”

The government’s proposal to consolidate conservation authorities has been posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario for public feedback until Dec. 22. It includes three parts: create a central agency to manage conservation authorities, consult on the boundaries and governance structures of the newly proposed seven regional agencies and then create said agencies by spring 2026. Each proposal has sparked several concerns for conservation authority staff who are in the process of consulting with their municipalities and partners. 

As has been the case since June 2024, no one from the Ontario Ministry of Environment responded to questions from The Narwhal.

Consolidating conservation authorities means overseeing much larger and more complicated watersheds

Ford has been consistently touting the need for “made-in-Ontario” solutions to the province’s issues: conservation authorities are an example of just that. They were created by a Progressive Conservative government in 1946 in response to deforestation. They were strengthened to prevent repeats of the extreme flooding caused by Hurricane Hazel in 1954. While they were tasked with acquiring land for conservation and recreation, their main job has always been monitoring waterways for potential deadly floods, including by regulating development near waterways and wetlands, in flood plains and on Great Lakes shorelines. 

Today, all but five of the 36 conservation authorities are in heavily developed southern Ontario. 

Each authority was created to manage its own watershed, an area of land that drains all the streams and rainfall into a lake, bay or river. The government’s proposal to create seven conservation authorities is based only on the Great Lakes watersheds: Lake Erie, Lake Huron-Superior, Lake Ontario, divided into western, central and eastern and the St. Lawrence River. 

“It’s not a reduction; it’s a consolidation and an amalgamation, which means that all of the communities currently served by conservation authorities will continue to be served by conservation authorities,” Minister McCarthy said on Oct. 31. He repeatedly promised there will be no layoffs in this new structure, but managers will be redeployed as frontline staff.

Conservation authorities have consolidated before. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority was once four authorities, merged in 1957 to better manage a larger floodplain. Conservation Sudbury and Conservation Halton are both the result of similar mergers. 

Almost all of these consolidations were local decisions made by municipal governments based on specific watershed or development concerns. Earlier this year, municipalities dismissed the idea of merging the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority with Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, saying it would create more costs and less localized service. 

“Geography has always dictated policy,” an eastern Ontario official said. “I’m not sure that’s what’s happening now.”

Every authority oversees a different kind of environment, even if they seem nearby on a map. Water moves differently through varying landscapes and development rates, and the potential effects of flooding on the environment also vary based on geography.

Take the proposed Huron-Superior conservation authority. It would bring together seven authorities spanning roughly 1,400 kilometres and 78 municipalities from Thunder Bay, on Lake Superior through Bruce, Grey and Dufferin Counties, Simcoe County, York Region, Kawartha Lakes and Durham Region. The natural systems that feed Lake Huron, Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay differ significantly from those along the north shore of Lake Superior. Each has distinct geology, land use and flood-risk patterns.

“It’s no joke to say that large of a region is roughly the size of Switzerland, with very different conditions and needs,” Scott said. “The costs of integrating governance, technology and operations across such a vast area could easily outweigh any savings, while adding complexity and distance.”

Carl Jorgensen, general manager of Conservation Sudbury, said that in northern Ontario, conservation authorities are far from each other. That makes sharing resources extremely challenging.

“The work we do is very localized,” he said. “The government has provided so little so far on how this is actually going to be implemented; it’s really hard to figure out how these new regional conservation authorities will work.”

“But assuming local offices remain, with staff who can support and perform that frontline work efficiently, there’s no advantage to reducing 36 to seven.”

McCarthy insists that not much will change. “Conservation authorities will continue to deliver the programs and the services that they deliver today,” he said on Oct. 31. 

“Their mandate is not changing. The areas served by conservation authorities are not changing. Their funding is not changing. In fact, they will be better equipped than ever before to meet the changing needs of our communities.”

Conservation authority consolidation threatens their ‘localized approach, localized expertise’

Conservation authorities are governed by provincial law but they are created, funded and managed by municipal governments. Local elected municipal officials sit on the boards to oversee their work and budgets, the majority of which is paid by municipal taxes. Sometimes, municipalities send money to more than one authority because watershed boundaries differ from city or town limits.

“We’re not created equal,” one official from central Ontario told The Narwhal. Larger authorities have more money and more staff. “The system can be kind of dysfunctional and needs a shakeup, but the right kind of shakeup that gives all of us the resources we need to do the important work we do.”

Angela Coleman, executive director of Conservation Ontario, told The Narwhal she’s concerned that consolidation could alter longstanding relationships, something she hopes the advocacy organization can share during the consultation process. 

“One of the main drivers that we’re hearing is that municipalities provide funding through their levies, and because of that, representation and decision-making on conservation authority boards must be carefully structured to reflect those financial contributions,” she said.

There is little in the government’s proposal about what the governing boards of amalgamated conservation authorities would look like. But those doing math in their heads are worried about the creation of extremely large boards made up of twice the number of municipal officials currently appointed. Karen Nesbitt, policy director for the Association of Municipalities Ontario, told The Narwhal this would effectively “weaken local municipal leaders’ voice, leading to a major loss of local control over conservation and environmental protection in communities.” 

In an email to The Narwhal, Nesbitt said there is general support for streamlining and improving services. “However, we are seriously concerned about how this is being carried out,” she said. “The government is making major changes, but it is not providing any new, ongoing provincial funding to run conservation authorities effectively. Worse, this funding gap is being made harder to manage because the province is taking these steps simultaneously.”

Staff also worry about a reduced level of on-the-ground services. “We are the last vestiges of the Ontario Ministry of Environment,” an official from western Ontario said. “We’re the only ones still on the ground, accountable to our communities and serving them with science-based work. After consolidation, I don’t know how we can keep doing that.”

A new provincial agency will centralize decision-making and oversight over conservation authorities

The consolidation will come via the Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency, a new government organization that will “provide centralized leadership, efficient governance, strategic direction and oversight of Ontario’s conservation authorities.”

That includes helping to “streamline and standardize service delivery” and ensure the “consistent application of provincial standards” for flood risk assessment and management. The agency will also help update floodplain mapping and dam infrastructure and develop a “single, digital permitting platform.” 

But while the goals of the agency make sense on paper, conservation authority staff are questioning why consolidation is needed in addition to that. Many already collaborate extensively through shared programs, technical partnerships and joint projects, especially in remote and rural Ontario, where resources are limited. 

“If it were only about efficiency, mandate what hardware and software we should use, give us the money for it, impose certain standards on this and be done with it,” an eastern Ontario authority official said. “But this goes so much further than that. It’s not about efficiency; it’s about removing power from the communities and imposing control from above.” 

“There is no equivalent model in Ontario where people are being told they have to pay for a provincial agency to oversee them,” the official continued. “It’s bizarre … good technology can’t make up for bad governance.” 

Scott agreed. “If governance becomes more centralized under a provincial agency while local boards lose control, we could end up with a system where municipal dollars are being spent under provincial direction without municipal oversight,” he said. “That would be a fundamental change to how Ontario’s watershed management system has operated for nearly eighty years — and not, in my view, a change for the better.”

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

They come from driving a car or taking the bus to the office. Or when employees are given a company-owned smartphone. They can even result from a three-course dinner at a holiday gala — or that box of doughnuts at a meeting. And for companies that extract fossil fuels, they also come when customers use their products.

All are examples of the creation of Scope 3 emissions: greenhouse gases that are indirectly produced by a corporation or institution’s supply chain and everyday operations. 

Employees’ commutes use fuel in the form of gas or electricity. Every step of manufacturing the electronics used at work — from design to mining to parts fabrication and product assembly — creates emissions. Greenhouse gases are also created when the food and drink at company events is procured, transported and prepared. They’re also produced when Canadian oil and gas is used as fuel, whether in this country or another one. 

These emissions will still get into the atmosphere and heat the planet even if oil and gas producers succeed in their ambitious plans to capture and bury the emissions they create when extracting fossil fuels. Yet attempts to get Canadian companies to report them — even voluntarily — keep getting delayed. 

The term “Scope 3 emissions” is technical and bureaucratic. But these emissions, like all greenhouse gases, have real, on-the-ground consequences. The heat-trapping effect of fossil fuel use is driving extreme weather events in Canada and around the world, putting humans, wildlife and ecosystems at risk.

Here’s how to understand these arm’s-length emissions, and why scientists think it’s important to keep track of them, no matter how far away they are. 

What exactly are Scope 3 emissions?

The goal of the Scope scale is to categorize emissions to help understand where they come from and how to reduce them. Scope 1 are direct emissions, which come from sources owned or controlled by a company and include what’s produced by its facilities and vehicles. Scope 2 are indirect emissions produced by generating the many forms of energy — electricity, steam, heating and cooling — households and businesses use day-to-day.

Scope 3 are the least immediate. They encompass both “upstream” emissions made when a company uses a product or service and “downstream” emissions made when its own products or services are used. 

Sara Hastings-Simon, an associate professor in the department of earth, energy and environment at the University of Calgary, said labelling and, hopefully, tracking these emissions is a way to hold companies responsible for emissions created by the goods and services they are producing and encouraging people to purchase and use. Coined in 2001 and formalized in 2011, the term “Scope 3 emissions” considers the ripple effects of a company’s activities on global emissions. 

“Companies have a role, often, in creating the demand for their product,” Hastings-Simon said, which is why she believes they should be held accountable for emissions made all along its supply and use chain. 

Scope 3 are not some intangible drop in the pond of global emissions. They are frequently the “largest source” of emissions for companies and represents the “most significant” opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas globally, according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a Washington, D.C.–based organization that creates global standards to measure emissions. Think about the Alberta oilsands: yes, mining and upgrading bitumen creates emissions. But the burning of the products — say, in consumers’ cars — creates far more of an impact. 

Scope 3 emissions aren’t just a big deal for the oil and gas industry. The Climate Disclosure Project, a non-profit based in the U.K., estimates that more than 90 per cent of emissions from sectors including real estate, financial services, capital goods and mining can be classified as Scope 3.

Canadians in favour of Scope 3 reporting have argued the same. In 2022, the federal NDP stated Scope 3 represent “an overwhelming majority” of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, in a report from the Standing Committee on Natural Resources looking at Canada’s long-debated emissions cap. 

In the report, the NDP said that in 2019, emissions from fossil fuels exported by Canada were 954 million tonnes, while total domestic emissions were just 730 million tonnes.“To leave them out of any regulation under a cap would be irresponsible,” the party stated.

What are the criticisms of tracking Scope 3 emissions? 

Some fossil fuel companies have said making them responsible for Scope 3 emissions could lead to actions that are actually contrary to climate goals.

Companies like ExxonMobil, Shell and BP do disclose Scope 3 emissions across their operations worldwide. For example, Shell reported customer emissions from using Shell products in 2024 totaled nearly half a billion tonnes of Scope 3 emissions. 

But a February 2022 report by environmental academics in Japan noted that ExxonMobil argued that reporting Scope 3 could be “misleading.” The paper cited a 2021 ExxonMobil report in which the company argues that if it were to sell natural gas to a country that then reduced the use of coal, it “would result in an overall reduction of global emissions but would increase Scope 3 emissions reported by the Company.”

Others have argued that tracking Scope 3 is “double counting”: because Scope 3 emissions involve so many businesses and producers in a supply chain, they may each be claiming the same emissions. It’s a potential overlap critics say could lead to a distorted view of emissions reductions. The argument is that a manufacturer might track the transportation of its goods as Scope 1 emissions — but all of the retailers and distributors who receive those goods could track them as Scope 3.

Several academic studies and frameworks note ways to make a precise calculation that avoids double counting. 

And Steven Young, an industrial ecologist and associate professor at the University of Waterloo, said calculating Scope 3 isn’t about tracking the total amount of emissions — it’s about companies taking responsibility for the entire supply chain they’re part of creating. 

“Part of the ambition was, well, it’s sort of double counting who’s responsible, but that’s kind of a good thing, if more than one organization is looking out for emissions reductions and management,” he said. 

Hastings-Simon said Scope 3 emissions calculations become essential if a company is claiming to be a part of a “low-carbon solution.” This gets back to the ambitious plans for carbon capture in Canada’s oilsands: even if all the emissions created during production were kept out of the atmosphere, exported fossil fuels would still create greenhouse gases when used elsewhere. 

“If there isn’t a credible explanation for how Scope 3 emissions will be reduced … then from a risk perspective a company should be able to explain why they see a market for their products in a future if there are broad global commitments to move to a net-zero future,” she said. 

The non-profits InfluenceMap and Greenpeace have criticized the Pathways Alliance group of Canadian oilsands companies for not including Scope 3 emissions in public plans to reduce the effect of their emissions, including through carbon capture. Pathways Alliance did not respond to a list of questions from The Narwhal about its Scope 3 emissions or these criticisms. 

Oil and gas companies “aren’t just meeting a demand but actually creating more demand and thus can be considered responsible for some of these emissions,” Hastings-Simon said, pointing to the explosive growth of investment in petrochemical-based plastic production as one example. 

Those in favour of Scope 3 reporting also say it’s key to identifying western corporations that place the most environmentally damaging parts of their supply chains in the Global South. Shifting the burden of those emissions onto those nations while the west seemingly meets climate targets, is a practice scholars call “Carbon Colonialism.”

At the heart of creating — and regulating — these standards is the understanding that global carbon emissions must be drastically cut to avoid the most severe effects of climate change. 

To be specific, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol reports the world needs to reduce emissions by as much as 85 per cent below what we put out in 2000 by 2050 in order to prevent the global temperature from increasing beyond 2 C above pre-industrial levels. Above that level “will produce increasingly unpredictable and dangerous impacts for people and ecosystems” — and Canada is already experiencing an increase in extreme weather that Environment and Climate Change Canada has linked to climate change. 

Are Scope 3 emissions regulated in Canada?

Fun fact: right now, there’s no universal requirement for Canadian corporations to disclose the full range of their emissions. 

Some industries are subject to a patchwork system of disclosure regulations, particularly concerning Scope 1. Since 2004, the federal government has required facilities that produce 10,000 tonnes or more of greenhouse gases annually to report emissions every year. Many provinces have similar regulations that kick in around 10,000 tonnes — although in Manitoba, the threshold is 50,000 tonnes. 

Attempts to introduce Scope 3 reporting — even voluntarily — have been delayed.

Last year, the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board gave corporations a deadline of 2027 to start reporting voluntarily — a timeline it said would prevent the move having an overly negative effect on markets. 

As of 2024, the federal Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions started requiring banks and insurance companies to report on plans to address the impact of climate change on their operations. The office has said the rationale behind the move is to protect those industries from legal accusations that they failed to protect investors from risks associated with climate change, such as the cost of extreme weather damages. 

Technically, those regulations make Scope 3 reporting mandatory — but that requirement, too, has been delayed, until 2028. The office said it wanted to align with the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board’s choice to push back Scope 3 reporting policies. It kept Scope 1 and Scope 2 disclosure deadlines in place: depending on the size of the institution, those kick in this year and early next. 

And in April, the Canadian Securities Administrators also delayed its December 2024 pledge to develop “a climate-related disclosure rule.” The group, an umbrella organization of provincial and territorial securities regulators, said in a press release it was pausing plans to figure out disclosure rules for both climate risks and employee diversity, as “in recent months, the global economic and geopolitical landscape has rapidly and significantly changed.”

Climate experts say movement on the issue is too sluggish given the urgency of global warming. Especially since the standards will be voluntary anyway. 

Hastings-Simon said delays on Scope 3 reporting raise a lot of “red flags,” as Scope 3 is a long-established concept corporations should be prepared for. She’s concerned a longer timeline gives companies time to push back against climate regulation altogether.

“Why is there this need for delay?” she said, emphasizing the importance of the government and its agencies having the full picture of Canada’s emissions. If investors or the public want to understand if a company is prioritizing decarbonization, it’s impossible to get the full picture without a Scope 3 disclosure, she said.

How can we reduce Scope 3 emissions?

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol has suggestions on how companies can start tackling Scope 3 emissions. These include reducing the distance between the supplier and the consumer and reducing commutes by offering remote work.

John Robinson, a professor of global affairs and the environment at the University of Toronto, has been leading a team examining how the school can cut its Scope 3 footprint. He said there are essentially two options: either reduce the activity producing the emissions or switch to an alternative activity that results in fewer greenhouse gases. 

He said the first option is under an institution’s direct control. For example, The University of Toronto is trying to make its campus more pedestrian-friendly, so that staff and students can move around emissions-free. 

It’s harder to control the emissions coming from manufacturing and shipping of goods and services it doesn’t produce. 

“Since the activity … can’t always be eliminated or reduced, there is a lot of focus on finding lower-emissions alternatives,” Robinson said.

The tool then is lifecycle assessment, he said. The process aims to calculate the total amount of emissions produced by the goods and services that went into creating an item, allowing institutions to make informed decisions about alternatives. If the school were purchasing desks, for example, it could consider multiple desks from multiple suppliers, comparing how much wood each uses, along with what kind of wood it is and where it came from. Then it could choose the option with the lowest emissions. 

Several consulting firms have software that can help with this calculation, Robinson said. And his own students can do it — as long as they have the information. 

What is the Carney government doing about Scope 3 emissions?

In short, not much. 

Even when the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board’s list comes into play, it will be voluntary. “It doesn’t have much teeth. You can put the information out there and some decision-makers will act on it, but it’s a pretty weak tool,” Young said. 

He said what’s proven to be more effective is carbon pricing — being charged for making emissions as an incentive to reduce them. But one of the first things Mark Carney did after becoming prime minister was remove Canada’s consumer carbon tax. While there is still a price for large emitters, Young said that misses smaller actors in the supply chain.

Meanwhile, Carney has repeatedly said Canada should be a leader in carbon capture and storage, which involves containing the carbon dioxide at the point of emission and then burying it deep underground. 

It’s a technology that has yet to be done at scale and it won’t tackle Scope 3 emissions at all. It’s also expensive. 

Young said carbon capture is a “pacifier” for the oil industry. “It’s a delay tactic, and it won’t work,” he said. “Why would we waste billions trying to come up with a techno fix that only prolongs a bunch of industries that don’t want to change?” 

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

The Doug Ford government wants to give itself the power to dictate more of the rules around how Ontario protects its drinking water.

The Ministry of Red Tape Reduction said the process in place to change the rules around drinking water is “overly complex and slow.” It said reforming that process will support housing construction and development, while keeping water safeguards in place.

But one expert said the move will take away power from local committees tasked with protecting their region’s water supply, centralizing it in the hands of the government.

If the government wants to beef up some local water protections, some tweaks to the process could be useful, according to Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. But without more details from the government clarifying how it will use its new powers, she added, it could also open the door to weaker public health protections down the road.

That’s a particularly ominous thought for some, coming 25 years after the Walkerton tragedy, which killed seven people and caused 2,300 more to become seriously ill, when the water supply in the town on the east side of Lake Huron became contaminated with E. coli from cattle manure.

Ontario Green Party leader Mike Schreiner said the changes amount to “reducing the power of independent, evidence-based experts and transferring that authority to the minister.”

“It certainly weakens the protections that were put in place out of the lessons learned from Walkerton,” he said in an interview. That includes the need for overlapping layers of protection.

“In the same way that we have a lot of redundancies around air traffic control … if something goes wrong here, you want to make sure there are other checks and balances. Because once you contaminate drinking water, you put people’s lives at risk.”

Red Tape Reduction Minister Andrea Khanjin’s office did not respond to questions from The Narwhal before publication.

Green Party: Walkerton showed the need for multiple levels of Ontario drinking water protection

On Oct. 20, Premier Ford’s Progressive Conservative government introduced Bill 56, the Building a More Competitive Economy Act. Among other things, the bill would change the Clean Water Act, a law put in place following a two-year inquiry into the disaster in Walkerton.

The Walkerton inquiry found the incident could have been prevented if a local official had properly monitored drinking water treatments — and if the Progressive Conservative government of the time, under Mike Harris, had not cut funding to the provincial Environment Ministry.

One solution that came out of the inquiry was to establish a series of regional plans to protect Ontario’s sources of drinking water.

The plans are locally developed and overseen by conservationists, public representatives and others. They identify groundwater and surface water flows around local drinking water supplies, the risks posed by things like industrial pollution or agricultural runoff and what rules should be in place to mitigate those risks.

There are now 19 committees overseeing 38 of these water protection plans across the province. The area each plan oversees is based largely on the conservation authorities in Ontario, along with two others that apply to areas of Georgian Bay and the Bruce Peninsula, and are tailored to the geology and hydrology of each area.

McClenaghan, of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said the point of this decentralized system is to make sure that each region has practical rules that make sense for them, including for local businesses.

The Building a More Competitive Economy Act would change the law so the government can dictate more of the specific wording around drinking water rules in the protection plans, instead of leaving that to the committees, she said.

For example, the province could mandate standardized wording to ban animal manure from certain zones around water wells, the cause of the Walkerton tragedy, instead of letting the local committee describe that as it chooses, she said.

“Basically, from what I can see, it’s just substituting the current system with a more prescriptive approach,” she said.

“It will remove some flexibility and approach from the committees — and I’ll be quite keen to find out from committees if they think some of their current approaches wouldn’t be permitted.”

The province might also step in to block a water protection committee’s specific approach to dealing with a threat to its local water supply, McClenaghan said. But she added Ontarians won’t know specific details until the government clarifies its role. That won’t happen until the Building a More Competitive Economy Act, which is being debated in the legislature, is passed.

Schreiner said one of the lessons from Walkerton was the need to have a “multi-barrier approach” and the committees were set up “to take the politics out of it.”

Having a multi-step system in place to ensure companies can’t carry out activities with a high risk of contamination, he said, may have prevented the extent of the mercury poisoning that happened in Grassy Narrows First Nation, where drinking water has been contaminated for decades.

In a press release, the government said it wants to change the clean water law because current requirements like consultation periods and ministerial approval can take years for even “routine” projects with pre-defined protections, like replacing an existing well.

It said it would be “simplifying consultation” and “expanding what counts as a minor change” to the water protection plans. This would support “housing and infrastructure development,” the government claimed, while keeping “strong protections for source water in place” as well as “timely, effective safeguards for municipal drinking water sources.”

The changes are “streamlining” so that “unnecessary repetition” is avoided, Environment Minister Todd McCarthy told reporters the day the bill was introduced.

Ford plans to change both Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act

The government also said there would be upcoming changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act — a separate law that makes sure tap water can be consumed and establishes rules around water treatment — that would let new wells or intakes start supplying water while the protection plans were still being updated.

The Building a More Competitive Economy Act is not the first time the Ford government has enacted laws that may jeopardize the province’s drinking water protections, according to McClenaghan’s organization.

In a blog post from April, the Canadian Environmental Law Association said the two-year-old Helping Homebuyers, Protecting Tenants Act, that allowed municipalities to more easily sprawl, could allow the use of ministerial zoning orders to bypass some drinking water protection rules.

And it said the More Homes Built Faster Act, introduced the year prior under Bill 23, limited the power of conservation authorities to stop developments that could harm water sources.

Ontario’s Auditor General released a report in March which found the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks doesn’t have the capacity to regularly inspect all 1,816 non-municipal drinking water systems it regulates.

Some communities in Ontario, like Six Nations of the Grand River, still do not have safe drinking water at all.

Meanwhile, the Ford government called on the federal government earlier this year not to entrench the right to clean drinking water in law.

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 High Seas Treaty reached a major milestone last week after more than 60 countries ratified the agreement, passing a key threshold that sets the stage for new conservation of international waters. But Canada has yet to formally approve the treaty. Until it does, the country with the longest coastline in the world will have limited opportunities to participate in treaty processes, including environmental assessments and efforts to establish marine protected areas in international waters.

The High Seas Treaty is the first international agreement aimed at conserving and ensuring sustainable use of biodiversity in marine areas that fall outside any single country’s jurisdiction — an area covering about two-thirds of the open ocean. After nearly two decades of negotiations, the treaty establishes new tools to create marine protected areas in international waters, a crucial step for meeting the global commitment to conserve 30 per cent of land and waters by 2030. 

It also lays out legally binding rules to strengthen scientific cooperation and ensure the benefits derived from marine biodiversity used for food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and more are shared fairly.

“It’s a historic milestone to have this kind of law in place,” Stephanie Hewson, a staff lawyer focused on marine conservation with the non-profit West Coast Environmental Law, said in an interview.

While a patchwork of international rules govern specific activities like shipping and fishing, this is the first treaty to look holistically at marine biodiversity in the high seas. Covering almost 70 per cent of the planet, the high seas include biodiversity hot spots like Saya de Malha Bank, an enormous seagrass community found in the Indian Ocean between the Seychelles and Mauritius, and the Costa Rica Thermal Dome, which offers ideal conditions for an immense bloom of microscopic blue-green algae. That algae forms the base of a rich food web that supports blue whales, dolphins, sea turtles, sharks and rays. 

Until it ratifies, Canada won’t be part of environmental assessments, decisions around marine protected areas

Canada signed onto the treaty in March 2024, touting its importance for meeting international conservation targets that 196 countries committed to under the global biodiversity framework, which Canadian officials helped broker in Montreal almost three years ago. “We simply cannot get there without a treaty to protect our high seas beyond national jurisdiction,” Steven Guilbeault, then-minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, said in a statement at the time.

Canada’s signature signalled its support, but the country won’t be able to fully participate in treaty processes until it ratifies the agreement. In Canada, ratification involves tabling the treaty in the House of Commons for 21 days to give members of Parliament an opportunity to consider the agreement — but the final decision rests with cabinet.

While Hewson said as far as she knows the federal government still intends to ratify the treaty, which she called “great news,” she warned “it’s not ratified, till it’s ratified.”

“Canada has been instrumental in moving this treaty forward,” she said. But, she added, its ability to lead or even participate in the development of treaty processes and institutions moving forward will be limited until it ratifies.

It also means Canada wouldn’t be part of decisions about where and how to establish marine protected areas in the high seas and limited in its participation in environmental impact assessments of planned activities that could harm biodiversity — even if they’re just outside the country’s waters, Hewson warned. While countries that have not ratified the treaty will still be able to provide comments to be considered during environmental impact assessments, parties to the treaty have additional opportunities to participate in the processes. 

Global Affairs Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not respond to The Narwhal’s request for comment by publication time.

Ratification milestone celebrated, but more work remains before treaty can benefit ailing seas

The timeline for Canada’s ratification remains unclear. Regardless, Hewson said it was an exciting moment when the treaty secured the 60 state ratifications required for it to become international law.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called it “a historic achievement for the ocean and for multilateralism.”

“As we confront the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, this agreement is a lifeline for the ocean and humanity,” he said in a statement.

The milestone came just days before the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research released its second annual Planetary Health Check report, which warned “the world’s oceans are acidifying to an unsafe degree.”

Oceans are a major carbon sink. By capturing significant amounts of carbon dioxide every year they play a crucial role in moderating climate change driven by humanity’s excessive burning of fossil fuels. But absorbing such large amounts of carbon dioxide has caused the oceans to become more acidic, threatening species and undermining vital marine habitats and food webs.

Rebecca Hubbard, the director of the High Seas Alliance of more than 70 civil society groups advocating for a strong treaty, celebrated passing the ratification threshold, but cautioned it’s “not the finish line.”

“The treaty’s true strength lies in universal participation,” she said in a statement, urging all remaining nations to ratify the agreement. Like Canada, the United States, China, the United Kingdom and Australia have all signed but not yet ratified the agreement. Neither Russia nor Japan have signed.

In the meantime, work is underway to build the institutions and processes for implementing the treaty. Proposals are also being developed for marine protected areas to conserve the biodiversity hot spots, including the Sargasso Sea, an area bounded by four Atlantic Ocean currents known for its floating masses of seaweed that offer rich habitat for a range of 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.