Summary

• Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government proposed major changes to the federal assessment process for mining, oil and gas and other infrastructure projects.
• The proposed changes include shifting assessments from an agency under the federal environment minister to regulators that report to the natural resources minister.
• Former ministers, First Nations and environmental advocates are criticizing the proposal, some calling it a more significant rollback of environmental law than was seen under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

Last year, Prime Minister Mark Carney established an office tasked with fast-tracking handpicked major industrial projects. Now, he says that’s not enough. He has a new proposal on the table meant to roll out the red carpet for all projects requiring federal approval, including pipelines, mines, transmission lines and other infrastructure.

The proposal, unveiled last week, would create “federal economic zones” where certain developments can be “pre-approved,” and provide exceptions to several rules governing fossil fuel and nuclear oversight, habitat preservation, species at risk protection and major project reviews.

It would fundamentally change the way the country scrutinizes industrial development and consults with Indigenous Peoples, in some cases shifting reviews at an agency under the purview of the environment minister over to federal bodies that report to the natural resources minister.

The government outlined its plan in two discussion papers, but it will need to flesh out the details and formally introduce them as part of new legislation, before they can be implemented in law. The Liberals are now able to pass legislation much easier, after they secured a Parliamentary majority following April’s byelections and the addition of five floor-crossing MPs to their caucus.

The House of Commons is on a two-week break, scheduled to return May 25. Meanwhile, the proposal is open for public comment through June 7. 

Here’s what you need to know.

Who wanted this change? Who didn’t?

The government says the alterations are necessary so Canada can better compete with other countries for investment dollars, and strengthen the Indigenous consultation process. It said the process to build things is “often slow, expensive and confusing” and the government must “go further to streamline review and approvals processes.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses across the country, also believes the government’s fast-tracking regime has “not gone far enough” and is hoping Carney continues to “peel back some of the red tape layers that have been holding back business success.”

Canada’s oil and gas industry has consistently advocated since Carney took office for his government to overhaul environmental assessments to turbocharge fossil fuel growth. Industry executives have personally pushed this position despite the industry enjoying big profits off the war in Iran, and despite the scientific conclusion that carbon pollution, of which the oil and gas industry is the largest contributor in Canada, is furthering destructive climate change that is leading to myriad health problems and premature death for Canadians.

Two former Liberal environment ministers have harshly criticized Carney’s proposal. Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault, who was the federal environment minister from 2021 to 2025, told the Toronto Star Carney’s plan is “worse” than the changes under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, which resulted in some high-profile legal challenges. Former Liberal MP Catherine McKenna, who held the same post from 2015 to 2019, told the Canadian Press Carney’s proposal will lead to a “lack of trust” and lawsuits, ultimately making the project approval process slower, not faster.

Ecojustice, an environmental law charity, has described the changes as potentially ushering in “the biggest rollback of environmental protections in a generation.” The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which represents 63 First Nations in that province, said it raises “serious concerns that Canada is moving toward a system where speed takes precedence over Treaty obligations, environmental stewardship and First Nations consent.”

The government wants to create ‘federal economic zones’ where developments are ‘pre-approved’

Carney’s government wants to legalize “federal economic zones” which it says could include areas designated for energy production and transmission, industrial regions, transportation and telecommunications. 

Inside these zones, the government would “pre-approve” certain developments, subject to conditions, and exempt projects from requiring individual environmental reviews — instead just requiring one overarching assessment.

It said the zones, and the activities allowed in them, would be “clearly defined.” Consultation with Indigenous Peoples would be a “key part” of the process, it added, including on determining the conditions for development inside the zones. The agreement of provinces is also “essential,” it said.

“This co-operation between federal and provincial governments would allow projects to be fast-tracked under both federal and provincial regimes,” reads the discussion paper. 

Sound familiar? Ontario passed similar legislation last year

A provincial regime is already in place in Ontario, after Premier Doug Ford’s government passed Bill 5 last year. The bill established the similar-sounding Special Economic Zones Act. Inside Ontario’s economic zones, the government can select certain proponents and projects, and exempt them from some municipal by-laws and provincial laws, including environmental protections. 

Critics have said Ontario’s law threatens wetlands, watersheds, peatlands and endangered species, and the Indigenous communities who rely on them. It’s subject to a court challenge from First Nations, asking for the law to be found unconstitutional.

The federal economic zones would be enabled through regional assessments, which are already an approach used by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to examine the cumulative effects of development in a given area. 

There is currently an ongoing federal regional assessment in the Ring of Fire, the mineral-rich area in the James Bay Lowlands known as Bakitanaamowin Aki, or “the Breathing Lands,” and Mammamattawa, or “many rivers coming together,” by the First Nations that call it home. 

Days after passing Bill 5, Ford said he would designate the Ring of Fire a special economic zone under Ontario law “as quickly as possible.” But in March this year, in a sudden shift in tone, Ford said he didn’t “need” to use these powers anymore to develop the area due to partnerships with several, but not all, First Nations communities in the region.

The Ontario government has long spoken about the region becoming a major mining hub. But an interim Ring of Fire regional assessment report has pointed to the need for environmental monitoring in the area’s boreal forest and peatlands, and the need for communities to urgently access health care. 

The provincial government, meanwhile, has been withholding scientific data and funding as part of the assessment process, and is not at the table with the First Nations and federal government representatives seeing it through, The Narwhal has reported.

New rules would change the role of the federal environmental review agency

Carney’s proposal would remove the ability of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to examine any pipeline projects that cross provincial or national borders, as well as any transmission lines or “offshore renewable energy projects.”

The agency, accountable to Environment, Climate Change and Nature Minister Julie Dabrusin, examines projects for sustainability, environmental protection and Indigenous Rights. It carries out its assessments “grounded in sound science, rigorous process and due diligence,” according to its website.

“Does Canada need to weaken its environmental laws to allow projects to proceed? No,” the agency declares on a frequently asked questions page. “Do federal policies prevent LNG, oil or pipeline projects from moving forward in Canada? No.”

Carney’s government is now of the opinion that issues like “poor coordination between government departments” are slowing down projects like pipelines. The government is proposing to shift assessments of certain projects away from the agency and over to two regulators that report to Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson. 

The job of reviewing all cross-border pipelines, transmission lines and offshore renewables would go to the Canada Energy Regulator, while the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would handle project reviews related to nuclear and uranium projects.

The government would also have the power to declare major pipelines “in the public interest,” before the energy regulator is required to complete its review of the project’s conditions or where the pipe would actually be laid.

At the same time, the government is proposing that the Impact Assessment Agency become the home of a new “Crown consultation hub” that would “ensure that each Indigenous group affected by a major project goes through one clear and coordinated consultation process for each project.” 

It is also proposing to assign the federal review coordinator at the agency the job of ensuring project assessments and federal permits “stay on track.” The government said it would change the law to ensure project reviews and permit reviews “happen at the same time” and that a federal decision would take no longer than one year.

Sound familiar again? Carney isn’t the first leader to try to fast-track industrial projects

Carney’s proposal is reminiscent of a shift that happened under Harper’s government, which tried to accelerate environmental assessments by moving more oil and gas oversight to the energy regulator’s predecessor, the National Energy Board, in 2012.

Years later, the National Energy Board came under scrutiny after the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the government’s approval of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline expansion project, saying the board’s review of the project was flawed. The former Northern Gateway pipeline proposal also had its federal permits overturned by the Federal Court.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government passed the Impact Assessment Act and Canadian Energy Regulator Act, collectively through Bill C-69, allowing the government to consider the impact of natural resource projects on issues like climate change. But a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2023 found the assessment scheme “largely unconstitutional,” forcing Trudeau’s government to introduce a revised version of the law in 2024.

There will be new exemptions to Canada’s species at risk law and fish permits

Carney’s government wants to change “some federal laws” that it argued can make the regulatory process “slow, repetitive and less flexible.” One of these appears to be the Species At Risk Act, a federal law passed in 2002 that is meant to prevent species extinction and help with population recovery. 

The law has a clause known as the “jeopardy test,” that restricts permits for an activity affecting a species or its critical habitat, unless the government believes the activity “will not jeopardize the survival or recovery of the species.”

Carney’s proposal would give the government the power to exempt projects from the application of this test. It said the power would be “limited” and have a “high threshold to be met,” would have to be in the “public interest” and would have to come after the proponent has made “all reasonable efforts” to avoid impacts.

The government also wants to offer more flexibility for permits that impact fish and fish habitat, when it comes to compensating for environmental harm. And it would allow “some early construction activities to start” before the government decides on the merits of a project, “if necessary permits are approved.”

Carney’s proposal also allows ministers to adjust certain conditions of a project assessment “in exceptional circumstances” and “adjust environmental conditions for projects of national interest, when needed.”

And it would hand the environment minister the power to issue a single federal document for certain projects that would include all federal decisions “required for a project to move forward.” It said experts in different departments would still review the project and provide advice, and enforcement would still be handled by the departments responsible. 

The changes come after Ford’s government in Ontario also removed the province’s Endangered Species Act and replaced it with the Species Conservation Act this year. That has had the effect of removing protection from many species.

After Ontario’s change, some threatened fish and birds are now only protected by federal laws. 

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

• Canadian law requires provinces to implement a carbon pricing system for major industrial polluters as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• But Alberta’s carbon pricing system isn’t producing the intended results, in part because its effective carbon price is too low to incentivise companies to reduce their emissions.
• It’s a sticking point in Alberta’s and Canada’s negotiations over whether and how to build a new pipeline to the West Coast. The two jurisdictions missed an April 1, 2026, deadline they set for themselves for agreeing on a new carbon pricing framework in Alberta.

Alberta and the federal government have been negotiating for months in an attempt to finalize a memorandum of understanding meant to pave the way for two key projects: a new pipeline to the West Coast and a massive carbon capture and utilization project in the oilsands.

Some elements of that deal have been hammered out, but one issue has proven tricky — an agreement on the industrial carbon price (once again, it’s not a tax).

The deal signed by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney last year called for a new framework on industrial carbon pricing by April 1, a deadline that came and went. 

So what exactly are they talking about and what could we expect to see?Here’s a primer on what it all means, from who pays for what to why oil companies really don’t want to spend their own piles of cash.

What is the industrial carbon price?

The consumer carbon price (RIP) is what most people think about when they hear about a carbon tax or a carbon price (it’s truly not a tax, but we’ll call it that, if you insist). That since-deceased mechanism was designed to impose a cost on people to incentivize change. Think about “sin taxes” on cigarettes as one example. Make a tank of gas more expensive and maybe people will drive less.

The industrial price, snappily named the “output-based pricing system” in federal lingo, targets large industrial emitters. Like the consumer version, the price is meant to incentivize emissions reductions. The more efficient a company, the bigger the savings. 

Each province manages its own industrial carbon price scheme. They can design their own, as long as its reduction potential is considered equivalent to the federal version, or they can simply use the federal system.In Alberta, it’s known as the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, but everyone just calls it TIER.

Okay, but how does the industrial carbon price work, exactly?

This stuff can get tricky, but let’s start easy.The premise is simple: large-scale industrial emitters (think steel, oil and gas and concrete) create the highest amounts of emissions. To reduce this, the government has put a price per tonne of carbon pollution on a small percentage of emissions these companies produce to incentivize them to adopt cleaner processes that emit less carbon. The money collected from these charges is pooled and distributed back to companies for investments that support this shift in emissions-reduction technologies, like carbon capture and storage.

The government sets a specific price for a tonne of emissions from a company. It also sets a threshold — if you pollute under that threshold, you don’t pay the carbon price, but if you pollute more than that threshold, each extra tonne is priced.

Companies, especially ones with a lot of emissions such as oilsands mines or concrete plants, want to reduce emissions as much as possible to avoid paying too much.

It’s also important to note the price applies to large emitters, with more than 100,000 tonnes of emissions in a year (equivalent to the annual emissions from approximately 22,000 cars).

The federal rules also call for incremental increases to the price to add an extra nudge. Over time, that makes the price of pollution more and more expensive, which is the entire point.

This is a policy designed to reduce pollution. Without it, pollution is free for the polluter, despite its costs to society and the environment. 

Carbon pricing is considered by many experts to be the most efficient and least disruptive way to reduce emissions. It’s a conclusion Carney himself came to both in 2015 and 2021.

Recent estimates from the Canadian Climate Institute peg the cost of the carbon price on oil and gas producers at 50 cents per barrel, with low, or non-existent, impacts for consumers across a range of products. 

Is carbon pricing all stick? Where’s the carrot?

Glad you asked.

While the carbon price encourages companies to strive to be more efficient to avoid the cost of pollution, they can also reap benefits from going that extra mile.

If a company reduces its emissions below the threshold set by the government, it earns credits. Those credits can then be sold to other companies to bring in real-world revenue.

Specifically, say one company reduces its emissions below the threshold and gathers credits. Another company that is still exceeding the threshold can come along and buy those credits and use them to cover its carbon pricing costs.

Money generated from the carbon price is also reinvested back into research and new technology development.

Win win, right?

Well, this is where things get messy. Especially in Alberta. Because the price is not really the price. 

Sorry, the price is not actually the price? What?

The memorandum of understanding between Alberta and Ottawa explicitly calls for an “effective price” of $130 per tonne of emissions. That’s because the price most people know, known as the headline price, isn’t necessarily what a credit will trade for between those two companies we imagined earlier.

The issue is that the Alberta government made changes to its industrial carbon pricing system one week after signing the memorandum that, when announced, flooded the market with credits and undermined their value. It also now allows companies to invest directly in technologies at their facilities instead of paying the carbon price. Those technologies may or may not actually reduce emissions.

Those changes could allow companies to essentially double dip — avoiding the carbon price by investing in technologies directly, and then collecting credits if their emissions drop.

Alberta also froze its headline price at $95 per tonne last year, rather than increasing the price as dictated by the federal equivalency rules. Not only is that a violation, it undermines the stability of the credit market and reduces confidence in the system for companies making decisions based on projected costs and benefits.

There was also a flood of credits from the rapid expansion of renewable power generation.

The end result is that carbon credits were trading as low as $17 per tonne last year. So while the headline price, which everyone understands as the price of carbon per tonne, might be $95, the effective price was, and is, well below. It’s currently trading between $20 and $40 per tonne.

As it stands, it’s very cheap for a facility to buy $20 or $40 credits compared to paying $95, but that’s less good for the efficient facilities selling the credits. And removes the whole point of the carbon price — making it expensive to pollute.

So what’s the plan for the carbon tax?

The agreement between Alberta and Ottawa signed last November called for a framework to increase the effective price to $130 per tonne by 2030 to be finalized on April 1. That didn’t happen.

Both governments say they continue to negotiate a plan, and rumours suggest something coming soon, but there are still no details. Last week, The Globe and Mail reported the speed at which the price will climb is the main sticking point.

One interesting aspect of the memorandum calls for “a financial mechanism to ensure both parties maintain their respective commitments over the long term to provide certainty to industry, and to achieve the intended emissions reductions.”

Translation: that means the agreement could include some sort of financial backstop for the credit market. That could mean the province would guarantee a credit price by offering to buy credits at, say, $130 per tonne.

That would help to stabilize the price and, hopefully, discourage the province from eroding the carbon pricing scheme (again). 

So we’re cool then?

The memorandum was framed around building both a new pipeline to the West Coast and the giant carbon capture and utilization project tied to the oilsands, known as the Pathways project.

The Pathways project would get carbon credits, which in turn would make that project more viable and could reduce the amount of public dollars used to build it.

However, the five largest oilsands producers behind the plan have dramatically walked back some of their enthusiasm for investing in emissions reductions.

On May 4, the group, which recently changed its name from the Pathways Alliance to the Oilsands Alliance, said it was still interested in carbon capture and storage.

“However, a project of this size requires supportive regulatory and fiscal frameworks, not an uncompetitive industrial carbon tax that no other major heavy oil producing jurisdiction faces, which would limit our industry’s ability to attract investment and grow,” reads the statement.

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

“The result of this myopic dialogue … is that we have created a set of national policies and regulations that make resource development and investment in Canada uncompetitive with the rest of the world,” he said, at the same time he announced an 83 per cent increase in the company’s profits. He also said increasing the carbon price would negatively impact the sector.

Cenovus reported $1.6 billion in earnings in the first three months of this year (McKenzie himself made $10.4 million in salary, stock options and bonuses in 2024). Suncor, another alliance company, reported earnings of $2.1 billion in the same time frame — 50 per cent higher than the same period last year.

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.

Canada’s vast landscape, which boasts 20 per cent of the world’s fresh water, a quarter of global wetlands and 28 per cent of its boreal forests, is critical to its economy. Natural resource industries — forests, farms, fisheries, mining and oil and gas — together make up approximately seven per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. 

Tension exists between expanding these industrialized sectors and protecting the ecosystems on which they depend. In Manitoba, some worry protecting the Seal River Watershed, which spans more than 50,000 square kilometres in the province’s north, will hinder opportunities in mineral resources and hydro; to the east, critical mineral mining ambitions in Ontario’s Ring of Fire clash with the protection of the Hudson and James Bay Lowlands, the second-largest carbon sink on earth; and in B.C., Coastal First Nations have protested that lifting the large tanker ban through their waters will endanger the protected Great Bear Rainforest.

These tensions make it easy to frame nature as the antithesis of economic activity, if it’s always put in opposition to projects that are described as growing Canada’s wealth, sovereignty and security. But a growing chorus of economic and policy leaders, alongside conservation groups, are making the case for nature to be seen as a critical financial asset — not a barrier, but another opportunity for economic growth. 

The federal government’s vision for conservation, laid out in its 2026 nature strategy, is of a nation that “protects, restores, and values nature as a foundation of our economy, sovereignty, and well-being.” 

One of the pillars to achieving that vision is “valuing nature and mobilizing capital,” according to the strategy. It estimated the value of “ecosystem services” — the direct and indirect contributions of nature to well-being and quality of life — to be $3.6 trillion, or “more than double our 2018 GDP.” In other words, the government is looking to spur more private sector investment in conservation by showing businesses how valuable nature is to their bottom lines.

The numbers show conservation is comparable with many of Canada’s major industries. While it may not produce the same scale of economic value as major resource extraction sectors like oil and gas — which does not approach the value of sectors like health care or education — it is a significant contributor to Canada’s economy. And the return on investment is high: a recent analysis by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) found every dollar spent on protected areas generated more than $3.50 in visitor spending, helping fuel local economies and generate government revenues. 

Like the oil and gas sector, Canada can choose to invest in the potential of conservation and champion it as a cornerstone of our country’s economic future. And as Canadians grapple with the increasingly severe impacts of the climate crisis, the role of intact ecosystems becomes even more valuable. 

These nine charts capture some of the value of Canada’s natural environments, and the economic potential of conservation.

Economic contributions from protected areas — by province

Gross domestic product (GDP) contributions of selected Canadian industries

How are the industries defined?+

Statistics Canada tracks economic activity indicators for a wide range of sectors using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which assigns a code to specific activities and sectors. Industries and government agencies tally these statistics in different ways to determine overall sector impacts. 

This analysis uses Statistics Canada’s data, and defines each industry as follows:

Agriculture: Crop and animal production (farming), related support activities and food manufacturing, including mills, bakeries, meat and dairy production.

Fisheries: Aquaculture, fishing, hunting and trapping and seafood product preparation.

Forestry: Forestry and logging, related support activities, wood and paper product manufacturing. 

Mining: Mineral mining (ore, non-metals, potash) and quarrying activities, including related support. Also includes mineral product manufacturing and metal manufacturing. 

Oil and gas: Oil and gas extraction and related support activities, petroleum and coal product manufacturing, natural gas distribution and pipelines.

Transportation: Air, rail, water, truck and transit and ground transportation (including public transit and taxis). 

Utilities: Electric power generation, transmission and distribution and water and sewage systems.

Jobs and compensation

More than 150,000 people work in protected and conserved areas — not far behind the oil and gas and forestry sectors. As the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society points out, many of these jobs are in Indigenous, rural and remote communities, where unemployment rates are high compared to urban areas. In parts of Canada where other economic opportunities are scarce, protected and conserved areas offer the opportunity to create long-term stable employment. 

Conservation provides value, but how are conservation workers valued? Compensation for the approximately 150,000 Canadians who work in protected areas is low, compared to other sectors; on average, an oil and gas worker makes nearly four times as much annually. 

Tax revenues and subsidies

Governments collected more than $1.4 billion in tax revenues from parks and protected areas in 2024, most of which stemmed from visitor spending, according to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s analysis. That’s comparable to government tax revenues from the forestry industry, at $1.2 billion. Major resource industries like forestry and oil and gas also create government revenue through royalties and other fees. 

But for many of these industries, government revenues can be offset by tax breaks, grants and other subsidies.

Governments invested $2.3 billion in parks and protected spaces in 2024, generating $0.62 in revenue for every dollar invested. By comparison, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates the federal government spent $3.17 billion USD (or $4.34 billion CAD) on fossil fuel subsidies — almost $1 billion USD more than the United States spent on subsidies, despite their industry’s far greater output. That number is likely an underestimate, as a lack of clear data and complex incentive structures make it difficult to track how much governments give out to industry. 

Environmental Defence, which releases an annual report tracking Canadian fossil fuel subsidies, estimates the government doled out more than $30 billion in subsidies and financing to fossil fuel companies in 2024. Most of that funding came in the form of a $20-billion loan for the Trans Mountain Expansion project. 

Carbon storage

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society estimated the carbon stocks stored in Canada’s existing protected areas by comparing protected area boundaries to data showing the carbon concentration in soil, vegetated areas and seabed sediments. 

It found a total 51.4 gigatons of carbon stored in the country’s protected forests, peatlands, wetlands, soil and seabeds. 

If this carbon was all emitted as carbon dioxide, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society estimates, it would equate to 188.4 gigatons of emissions. 

By protecting these regions from industrial disturbances like mining, logging or draining, that carbon stays in the ground. If released, that carbon comes at a cost. 

Canada’s industrial carbon price, which charges businesses for emissions that exceed a predetermined limit, is $110 per tonne as of 2026. A carbon credit — doled out for activities that remove or avoid carbon emissions — is worth the same.

At that price, the carbon stored in Canada’s protected areas is worth $20.7 trillion. 

That’s about 10 times the value of Canada’s global mining assets ($352.6 billion), global energy assets ($827 billion) and domestic farm sector assets ($992.4 billion) combined.

Annual carbon capture

Protected and conserved areas remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, a process known as “carbon capture.” Manitoba’s Riding Mountain National Park, for example, removed an average of 108,328 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere between 1990 and 2020. This is significantly less than Shell’s Quest carbon capture and storage project, but it’s also just one of hundreds of parks and protected areas across Canada.

Most parks, like the ones included in this chart, are sequestering carbon each year. However, when parks or protected areas are hit by wildfires, they can become carbon emitters.

– With files from Michelle Cyca

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

Summary

• In briefing notes, officials with Canada’s natural resources department compared a federal office to a White House council tasked with stewarding energy projects forward.
• Canada’s Major Projects Office is meant to speed up developments including natural gas and mining.
• A First Nations leader noted Canada’s different constitutional framework, while environmental experts and advocates cautioned against following Trump’s push for “energy dominance.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s special office for speeding up major projects “operates similarly” to U.S. President Donald Trump’s energy “tiger team,” according to internal Canadian government records.

The comparison between Carney’s Major Projects Office and the president’s National Energy Dominance Council, or NEDC, are contained in a briefing note for Canadian Energy Minister Tim Hodgson that was obtained by The Narwhal through an access to information request.

“The NEDC operates similarly to the Major Projects Office,” the briefing note from Natural Resources Canada reads, “providing support to advance projects efficiently and address issues that may impede progress. It is a small group of officials working at the centre of government to facilitate decision-making.”

According to a description by one of its senior advisers, the U.S. council, which was created within the Executive Office of the president, is conceived as a “tiger team,” or a group of specialists hired to solve a specific problem. It offers “concierge, white glove service” to get mining and fossil fuel projects approved fast, the advisor said.

It’s chaired by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who has close ties to oil and gas producers, and the team has been involved in promoting mining, natural gas and a pipeline in Alaska. The briefing note shows Hodgson was scheduled to meet with Burgum last October.

Six months after Trump’s council was formed, Carney launched the Major Projects Office with a mandate to “streamline and accelerate” regulatory approvals for “nation-building” projects. The office is backed by the Privy Council Office, the department that supports the prime minister and cabinet.

So far, the prime minister has referred five mining projects and two natural gas projects to the office, as well as others in nuclear, electricity, ports and roads. He put Dawn Farrell, the former CEO of the oil pipeline company Trans Mountain, in charge.

During a visit to an energy conference in Houston in March, Hodgson remarked on the closeness of his office’s relationship with Burgum, and said, “the U.S. wants to achieve energy dominance. We support you in that view.”

The Narwhal approached Hodgson after he gave a speech at a First Nations Major Projects Coalition conference in Toronto on April 30, to ask about the comparison his department made with Trump’s team. The minister, while walking through the conference and chatting with an attendee, twice avoided taking questions, saying he was too busy. Another official suggested contacting his office.

A spokesperson for Natural Resources Canada said the comparison between the Major Projects Office and the U.S. council “was intended as a high-level description of function — not a statement of equivalence in mandate, governance or approach.”

The department also noted Canada’s “distinct constitutional, legal and policy framework that reflects our values and obligations” and said Canada’s office is “not limited to a single industry or sector.”

Treaty 8 Grand Chief says comparisons between Canada and U.S. approaches to development should be ‘treated very carefully’

Carney has pitched the Major Projects Office as working “in partnership” with Indigenous Peoples. He held summits last year with First Nations, Inuit and Métis rights holders. The office’s Indigenous Advisory Council is meant to help guide its work.

Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi, of Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, sits on the Major Projects Office’s Indigenous Advisory Council. He reacted to the comparison by noting that Canada’s different constitutional framework, including the Crown’s obligations to First Nations, means “speed cannot come at the expense of Treaty Rights.”

“What I can say is that any comparison between the Major Projects Office and a U.S. energy permitting model has to be treated very carefully. Canada operates within a different constitutional framework,” Mercredi said, including Treaty Rights, land claims and the duty to consult. “The Crown’s obligations to First Nations cannot be treated as permitting issues or obstacles to be managed around.”

He said there is value in the Major Projects Office if it improves government transparency and coordination and ensures First Nations are meaningfully involved in decisions that affect their lands, waters and Treaty Rights.

“But if the purpose is to simply move projects faster by narrowing, bypassing or compressing Crown obligations, that would be a serious concern,” he said.

Mercredi said his role on the Indigenous Advisory Council does not replace direct consultation with rights-holding nations and doesn’t satisfy the Crown’s legal obligations.

For Treaty 8 nations, he said, the issue isn’t whether Canada can build major projects — it’s whether Canada will honour treaties, respect First Nations jurisdiction and ensure decisions are made with “proper consultation, accommodation, environmental protection and real participation by the nations whose territories are affected.”

Canada’s Bill C-5 faces strong opposition, and a lawsuit

The government passed the Building Canada Act, part of Bill C-5, in June 2025, cementing a process in law to name projects in the “national interest.”

It has seen strong opposition from some Indigenous communities, as well as public interest groups, who argue it paves the way for the government to circumvent oversight that’s meant to protect the environment, public health and scientific integrity.

The Quebec Environmental Law Centre has launched a legal action asking the courts to strike down the law. The group announced April 27 it had gathered 11 other organizations who seek to intervene in the lawsuit.

The law centre’s executive director Geneviève Paul, reacting to the documents from the natural resources department, said decisions made behind closed doors are not in the interest of Canadians.

“The government of Canada needs to act responsibly and defend our institutions, not follow authoritarian trends and copy the jurisdictions which are dismantling the protections we need to move forward safely,” she said.

Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist at Greenpeace Canada, said it was “telling” that the federal department itself was comparing the two offices.

“I think many Canadians who voted for an ‘elbows up’ agenda would be surprised to learn that our natural resources minister went to Houston [in March] to tell Americans that he wants to help the Trump administration achieve energy dominance, which is code for expanding fossil fuels at any cost,” Stewart said.

Updated on May 5, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. ET: This story has been updated to include a statement from Natural Resources Canada that was sent after the given deadline.

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.

Avi Bryant grew up in a middle-class neighbourhood in Vancouver. By the time he was 30, he was well on his way to becoming a millionaire. 

He calls his path “sheer luck” — but it’s more nuanced than that. Bryant got lucky, sure, meeting the right kinds of friends and acquaintances (executives at Twitter, for example) at the right times. He also made good business and financial choices, including taking stock options in lieu of some of his pay while at Stripe, that eventually propelled him into the so-called one per cent.

Now, instead of kicking back and sipping martinis with the economic elite, he’s joined a growing chorus of wealthy individuals calling for nations to stop catering to the ultra-rich. In fact, he says, Canada needs to tax the rich more — a lot more.

Doing so could change the lives of all Canadians, he says, and help the country accelerate its transition away from fossil fuels. With more tax dollars at its disposal, the federal government would be in a position to make major investments in electrification, solar projects and more. 

Enter the Patriotic Millionaires, a newly registered federal lobbying group that Bryant belongs to, which is advocating for changes to the country’s tax regime. 

From his home on Galiano Island, B.C., Bryant told The Narwhal why he believes Canada needs to target its wealthiest citizens, and some of what it can do with the proceeds.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you tell us about yourself? Did you grow up wealthy?

We were kind of typical middle class. I certainly did not grow up in a wealthy household. At the same time, I grew up in what felt like a very privileged household where there was lots of education, lots of books around, lots of support, a very safe neighbourhood with lots of resources. I didn’t grow up in anything that felt like poverty or lack of privilege, but it certainly was not wealth. 

I ended up doing a computer science degree at [the University of British Columbia] and got into the tech world after graduating, starting a small company in Vancouver. We’re talking early 2000s, kind of post dot-com bust. I made a lot of connections with a lot of people who turned out to be useful people to know. In 2010, we ended up selling the company to Twitter, which was starting out at that time. That considerably changed our financial situation. It also meant that we moved down to San Francisco for a couple of years and made a lot more connections.

Someone who I had met in Vancouver, in those early startup days, I got to know a lot better when we were in San Francisco: Patrick Collison, who started a company called Stripe. I joined Stripe in early 2013, when that company was still, again, very small. I mean, it was 40 people or something at that point. That company then grew to be thousands of people and worth hundreds of billions of dollars. As an early employee, I had effectively been an early investor and that was just sheer luck. There was no way to predict that my tiny percentage of Stripe was going to end up being worth a large amount of money. 

I left Stripe in 2019, feeling like [my wife and I] had this responsibility to do something with our time and resources that was not just motivated by profit and commerce, that was more about having an impact on the world.

Why do you want to be taxed more?

Society is better off if everyone has their basic needs met and I see that as a function of government. Obviously, Canada has lots of social services … but I believe the government can and should be doing more — and that’s going to require more money. I think the obvious place to get that money is from taxing people who have a lot of it. 

[It’s] about the marginal utility of money: if you’re living on $20,000 a year and you lose 10 per cent of that, you’re losing $2,000 — that’s a big deal. If you’re living on $3 million a year and you lose 10 per cent of that, you’re down $300,000. So what? It’s not going to change your lifestyle. 

We do have progressive taxation. We increase the percentage you’re taxed as you make more, but the top bracket starts at around $260,000. So we don’t distinguish between someone who’s making a quarter-million a year and someone making $2.5 million a year, or $25 million a year. Those situations are very different.

From my point of view, there’s an obvious opportunity to increase taxes on the people who are making millions of dollars a year. There’s also an opportunity to increase taxes on people who hold scarce, valuable resources. Land is the obvious one here. If we’re using land so someone can have a beautiful, 200-acre waterfront estate … I mean, fine, but let’s tax the shit out of it.

I think we have an opportunity to do that without particularly changing people’s lifestyles. It’s not going to make them move out of the country. That’s just not going to happen. They’re here because they want to be here. I’m here because I want to be here. I can afford to pay a lot more in tax than I do without changing my lifestyle and that money can be used to improve the lives of other Canadians.

You touched on the typical argument against this idea: if Canada puts those things into place — vacation home taxes and other types of taxes targeting the wealthy — then those people will just take their money and go elsewhere. What would you say to that?

The only other thing I would say is good riddance. Ultimately, for the handful of people who’d say, “If you raise taxes on the wealthy, I’m going to move to Barbados,” — it’s like, okay, fine. Like: bye Felicia.

Canada is a wonderful place to live. I could live anywhere I want. This is where my family chooses to live, because we truly believe that this is the best place to be living. And that’s true whatever the tax rate is.

Do you think this proposition, that the government adjust its tax systems, would create benefits for climate and ecosystem health?

One of the functions of government is to do large-scale investment, often infrastructure investment. I think climate is one area we can and should be making large-scale investments. We should be taking a page from China’s book and building very large-scale solar power plants to shift load away from fossil fuel plants. We should be investing in more efficient transportation, like train networks. We should be electrifying as quickly as we can — because we have to.

The key climate fight here is we know how to transition our electrical production off of fossil fuels. But we also need to shift the demand for things that are currently not electric to electric — and transportation is a big piece of that. Obviously, electric cars have been successful. But trucking, marine, aviation … These are all things that currently depend heavily on fossil fuels. I very much see that as a government function, making investments in shifting those loads from fossil fuel to electricity.

So by taxing the rich, you add more money into the government’s capability to invest in infrastructure — which it can allocate as subsidies and investments to support climate mitigation projects?

Exactly. I think we should be taxing the rich and we should be using that money to invest in, broadly speaking, electrification projects. From a climate point of view, I think that’s the best thing we can be doing — and just doing everything we can to move off of oil. Alberta is going to fight us tooth and nail, but let’s find a way to transition that economy to a renewable economy. If we have to sink a lot of federal money into it, that’s worth doing, because our dependence on fossil fuels is bad for everyone.

Do you think philanthropy plays a role in solving these bigger existential problems?

I do. With the government, we’re kind of entrusting all of our collective money and the government, as a result, tends to be quite risk-averse. The government doesn’t want to put a lot of capital into something that might fail and they get blamed and they won’t get re-elected or whatever. I think that caution is actually quite appropriate with public money, but at the same time when they do decide it’s worth doing something, they can do it on a very large scale. 

I think philanthropy can be the other side of that coin, which is to say individual philanthropists can take risks with their money and explore ideas that are not as proven. And then, hopefully, having proved some of them right, the government can come in and scale that up. So I think that’s worthwhile. That said, does that philanthropy need to be tax deductible? I don’t really think so.

Who are the Patriotic Millionaires?

Patriotic Millionaires is an organization that began in the U.S. It’s a very focused advocacy organization of people who have wealth who are asking for higher taxes on people who are wealthy. [They] opened a sort of sister organization in the U.K. and last year opened a Patriotic Millionaires in Canada. My wife and I are both members and she is now on the board.

I can see some opposition from powerful minorities, but I think most people can get behind the idea of everyone paying a fair share.

And yet the capital gains exclusion that was on the table for former prime minister Justin Trudeau came off with Prime Minister Mark Carney. Speaking for myself, not the organization, we need to understand why that is. It seems to me the loud minority won that fight. I don’t understand the politics there, but I think that in order to figure out what to do next, we need to understand.

I was listening to a podcast on fashion, of all things, about tariffs and the economy and this idea that we need to tax the wealthy more. They put it in this framing of “join us.” 

Like, “You guys are off in this little corner and having to hide your money and put it in all these different places and do these different things to avoid being like the rest of us. Come be like the rest of us; join us.” I’m curious for your thoughts on that.

One part of our story is that wealth was a relatively new thing for us and there was a period of a few years where we were really trying to hide from our friends and neighbours how wealthy we were. There’s kind of a social norm there, right? You don’t talk about money. And the dissonance there was so hard.

It feels so much better to be much more open about this with people — and, yeah, to join them. We live on Galiano Island: it’s a small community, it’s a tight community. It’s much better to have those close relationships with people in honesty and solidarity.

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

• Around 10,000 Starlink satellites represent more than two-thirds of all satellites in low orbit, and SpaceX has ambitions to launch a million more — raising serious environmental and safety concerns.
• Usually satellites burn up on re-entry, leaving heavy metals and plastics in the atmosphere, but sometimes they leave debris on the ground. Canadians who live near the 50th parallel are under the densest band of satellites.
• Currently, Canada has no reporting system for space debris and no ability to limit the number of satellites launched into orbit. Existing space laws do not apply to private companies such as SpaceX and space is not covered by any environmental regulations.

Billions of people watched in awe as the Artemis II mission took an astronaut crew that included Canadian Jeremy Hansen around the moon and back. It was an awe-inspiring moment for space exploration — but not all the news from space is good for Earth. 

There are thousands of satellites in low orbit, which means 2,000 kilometres or less above the earth. Many were sent there by Elon Musk-owned SpaceX, which launched its first Starlink satellite in 2019 and has come to dominate the sky, representing more than two-thirds of all satellites in orbit. Wherever you are in Canada, when you look up at the increasingly bright night sky, you are seeing more satellites and fewer stars. 

Starlink is an internet provider used by rural farmers, northern First Nations and airplane passengers criss-crossing Canadian skies. Each of its satellites has a lifespan of roughly five years, after which they re-enter Earth’s atmosphere at a rate of one or two satellites per day. 

At this point, they become what’s known as space junk — burning up entirely or, occasionally, scattering debris. But those occasions will become more common if SpaceX fulfills its ambitions to launch a lot more satellites in the years to come, coinciding with the explosion in data centres and artificial intelligence. That would mean more light pollution in the night sky and more space junk falling back to Earth.

Samantha Lawler is a professor of astronomy with the University of Regina and goat farmer — and she is concerned about space junk. She spoke with us from her farm in Saskatchewan (where she did not use Starlink to connect to Zoom) about why we should be concerned about the growing number of satellites over Canada — including the potential for satellite collisions that could make low orbit unusable for everyone, a scenario called Kessler syndrome. 

“We’re right on the edge of that already,” she said, adding that someone needs to take on the engineering challenge of providing rural internet and other services with fewer satellites. “There is a limit to how many we can safely have in orbit, and I think we’ve crossed that limit.”

SpaceX didn’t respond to The Narwhal’s questions about the environmental or safety impacts of their plan, and the Canadian Space Agency didn’t respond when asked if and when an official reporting system might be created. But Lawler had a lot more to say about the current lack of regulations protecting us from their impacts in the sky — or here on Earth.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

What’s your work all about? 

I study orbital dynamics in the Kuiper belt — so, looking at small icy rocks in the outer solar system and measuring their orbits. I started my position at the University of Regina and moved to a farm with access to dark skies in 2019, right when the first Starlink satellites launched, so I could watch the change in my night sky that I suddenly had access to and see the change in my research data, too. Increasingly, there were more and more satellite streaks in my data.

So, I had this unique perspective of seeing that wow, this was pretty bad, and it’s going to get a lot worse.

In 2021, you published an article that said one out of every 15 points of light in the night sky would soon be a satellite, not a star. At the time, what were the environmental and scientific concerns about that figure?

So, at the time, that one in 15 represented 65,000 satellites — which, when we wrote that paper, I thought was ridiculous. Like, there’s no way we’ll ever get to that. But here we are at around 15,000 with no signs of slowing down. So we might get there, and now there are proposals for millions of satellites. But at the time, I think very few astronomers — and almost no one outside the astronomy community — had any idea how bad this was. 

There was a small group of astronomers that noticed, “Hey, this is very bad for astronomy. But have you thought about how many of these are going to be burning up, and how many are going to be launched, and how much danger there is in orbit?” I think that’s starting to change now — I’m glad that more people are aware of the issues, but they continue to get worse.

So, in the vein of things getting worse, in January SpaceX requested the authority of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to launch ‘a constellation of a million satellites’ to serve as an orbital data centre. How much worse would a million satellites be?

It’s so bad in every possible way. There’s no way we can get to a million satellites — there will be collisions in space and we’ll be in full Kessler syndrome before we get there. But if somehow, they managed not to crash, they have five-year lifetimes. That would be one re-entry every three minutes. And those satellites would have to be bigger than Starlink satellites because of the complexity of a data centre versus an internet provider, right? In some of the articles we were writing quickly, we were estimating two tonnes per satellite, but it sounds like from various things SpaceX has released that they’ll actually be much bigger than that. 

So these are as big as the International Space Station in terms of reflecting area, which means the simulations I ran were actually an underestimate of how bright they would be. So — everything is bad and actually it’s worse than the assumptions I made initially. Really, really bad.

Satellites are so bright because they reflect sunlight back at Earth to avoid overheating. The bigger they are, the more they reflect.

Just to linger on that for a minute — all satellites that go up eventually have to come down, and they usually burn up on re-entry. What happens when they don’t?

So everything that’s in low Earth orbit, which is most of the satellites — including all of the 10,000-plus Starlink satellites — at the end of their life, they get burned up in Earth’s atmosphere, because it’s convenient. And so far, it looks like Starlink is actually doing a pretty good job of burning up. There was one piece of a Starlink satellite that was found in a farm in Saskatchewan a couple of years ago, but they seem to be doing a pretty good job. 

What that means, though, is that all the mass of the satellites — the solar panels, plastic, metal, batteries — it’s all getting melted and deposited in the upper atmosphere. So, that’s not a good thing. There was a period of time, about six months, where Starlink burned up 500 satellites. That’s around three per day. In that time period, they exceeded the natural infall rate from meteorites by at least twice as much — so, adding at least twice as much aluminium as what naturally comes into the atmosphere every day for six months.

So what does that do? We don’t actually know. There are a few preliminary studies showing this aluminum can become alumina, which can cause ozone depletion and change temperatures in the upper atmosphere, but we don’t know the full effects. And because space is not legally considered an environment, all satellites launched from the U.S. are categorically excluded from any kind of environmental regulations.

If they get to their steady state of having 42,000 Starlink satellites alone — that’s only one of many mega-constellations they have planned — that’s something like one satellite being burned up every hour in the atmosphere. These are satellites half the size of a Ford F-150 pickup truck. They’re not small. That’s a lot of metal being added to the upper atmosphere, and we don’t know the full effects of it.

Why is this changing so rapidly? In 2019, Starlink launched its first satellite — seven years later,  we are looking at the possibility of mega-constellations that will blot out the stars?

SpaceX does all the launching — all the other mega-constellation companies [such as One Web and Amazon’s LEO] are using SpaceX to get to orbit. It has the infrastructure to do all the launches, they have a lot of U.S. government funding to do those launches, so they’re doing them very, very quickly. It’s very impressive engineering, it just ignores so many of the larger effects.

We’re in different provinces, but you and I — and most Canadians — live close to the 50th parallel. You’ve mentioned people on our latitude are particularly affected by satellites. For Canadians who aren’t experts looking for data in the sky, what will they be seeing?

I know in my sky, there’s a line where I can always see a Starlink satellite in motion. Just always. So, people might notice that. We are also the highest-risk for satellites that aren’t burning up completely, because they’re right over our heads. These are all uncontrolled re-entries, so they just re-enter somewhere along their orbit, and we’re under the densest part. I think that was demonstrated by the piece that was found in Saskatchewan. 

That was in 2024, when a farmer found a piece of SpaceX debris on his farm?

Actually, there are two separate things: one was a big debris fall in Ituna, Sask., which was part of the SpaceX Dragon truck. It’s part of the capsule that brings astronauts up to the space station. When it doesn’t burn up completely, it falls — so that was a bunch of very large pieces discovered across many farms. I know of six pieces from that, but there are probably more that people haven’t reported because there is no way to report them. There’s no official reporting system. 

The second incident was a smaller piece from a Starlink satellite, about the size of a laptop, discovered near Hodgeville, Sask.

With the Ituna debris, it was reported to the Canadian government, and there was some kind of interaction between the Canadian and U.S. governments. In Ituna, SpaceX contacted the farmers directly and came to pick up the pieces. With Hodgeville, the farmer got in touch with SpaceX, and they had him FedEx [the debris] back. So no one in the Canadian government knew about it, which is bad.

The Ituna debris fall was spectacular because the pieces were so large and there were so many. But the Starlink debris is much scarier to me, because there are 10,000 of these over our heads, and if they’re not burning up completely, then that’s a lot of pieces that are hitting the ground. Here in Saskatchewan — I look out my window and it’s just bare fields. It’s the easiest place to find the pieces. But how many pieces are we not finding? These pieces look like something that fell off a car; if you found one in the city, you wouldn’t think it was space junk. 

Every time there’s a re-entry, they just roll the dice, like, “It’ll probably burn up.” But we don’t actually know, there’s no data released on that, and the only way we find out if they aren’t burning up completely is if we find pieces on the ground.

You’ve said there’s no reporting system in Canada — do you think that will change?

I’ve been in touch with the Canadian Space Agency and they say they are working on a plan. But I don’t know. Aaron Boley at the Outer Space Institute has set up an email address — spacejunk@outerspaceinstitute.ca — but it’s not official. We’re astronomers, we’re not supposed to be collecting this, but no one else is. 

After I heard a Starlink piece had fallen in Saskatchewan, I got in touch with the farmer by going on the Evan Bray radio show — like, the lunchtime farmer call-in show, where I go to talk about astronomy all the time — and asking who found it. Saskatchewan is a giant small town, so I actually got in touch with the guy by doing that. 

And he mentioned that his neighbour has some space junk too, and sent me a photo of this big piece of, like, corrugated metal. I was like, “Come on, that’s not space junk — it’s a piece of tractor or something.” But then he sent me a letter that this guy got from the Canadian government back in 1980, saying, “Thank you for sending us this piece of a Soviet rocket.” So, Saskatchewan has been the debris detector for decades.

So maybe 1980 was the time for the Canadian government to start thinking about a space debris plan! But what kind of power does it have?

Everything that goes into orbit is covered by the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention, which are these Apollo-era treaties, written at a time when only the U.S. and the Soviet Union were launching stuff into orbit. They’re really not written for private companies. It’s just not set up for our current situation, where most of the satellites are owned by private corporations — by one private corporation, mostly.

Senator Paula Simons has launched a Senate inquiry into space junk falling on Canada, which is awesome. So there is starting to be some interest. But nothing has really happened substantively.

What feels possible in terms of Canada’s leverage here? It’s hard to imagine the U.S. being receptive to Canada saying, “Hey, slow down the satellite launches until we have a legislative and accountability framework in place.”

It’s hard, because Canada could say, “SpaceX, you are causing our taxpayer-funded astronomy research to suffer, so you need to pay a fine.” But then SpaceX could turn around and say, “Okay, the Canadian market isn’t that big, we just won’t broadcast to you.”

A lot of Canadians are benefitting from Starlink right now — which I don’t think is a good idea, but rural internet is terrible. And then Canada would get all of the downsides and none of the upsides.

Is it fair to say SpaceX has a kind of monopoly on space now?

SpaceX controls orbit, totally. They have two-thirds of all satellites in low orbit and if you want to go into space, you effectively have to ask them for permission. During the Artemis launch, they had all these blackout periods where there were Starlink satellites they had to avoid. By their own admission, Starlink does a collision avoidance manoeuvre every two minutes. 

I wrote a paper with a bunch of other people that’s being reviewed, but in June, when we wrote it, it predicted that it would take five-and-a-half days for a catastrophic collision [between satellites] to happen if there were no avoidance manoeuvres. It’s since dropped to three days. So if SpaceX gets hacked, or there’s a bad software update, or a giant solar storm, the time we have to avoid a giant collision in orbit is getting shorter and shorter. That’s a bad situation. 

Why does SpaceX even need 42,000 satellites to provide internet, if OneWeb is doing it with 800? They’ve never been asked to justify the number.

Hmm, all this sounds really bad. Is there anything Canadians can or should be doing?

We need alternatives on the ground to these internet provider mega-constellations. We need better rural internet. So something Canadians can do very easily is write to all levels of government about getting better internet to rural and remote communities, especially First Nations. I mean, no wonder everyone is using Starlink — I live 10 kilometres from the nearest town and I can connect to power lines and phone lines and natural gas lines but I can’t connect to broadband internet. 

That’s something we can all advocate for — because if people have good internet options based in Canada, then they don’t need to rely on an American billionaire-owned company.

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

Summary

• The federal government is proposing changes to Canada’s access to information regime that could shield some emails and text messages from information requests.
• These sorts of requests have formed the basis of reporting from The Narwhal and other media outlets, and have been used by lawyers, academics and members of the public.
• The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is seeking public feedback on the proposal until June 15.

A secretive bid for Canada’s spy agency to share intel with corporations. A behind-the-scenes lobbying effort to weaken climate rules and fast-track a major oil and gas project. A federal-provincial tug of war over a new highway in Ontario.

These, and many more stories by The Narwhal, were built off government documents retrieved through Canada’s transparency law. For more than 40 years, the Access to Information Act has given journalists, lawyers, academics, activists, businesses and political parties a peek behind the curtain at what the government is doing with tax dollars.

In theory, and sometimes in practice, the law allows for an up-close look at a wide range of government records in a timely manner, usually for just $5, and subject to safeguards like removing personal information, certain legal details and classified materials. But other times, requests can take years to process. The regime has long been accused of being too slow and cumbersome.

In early March, the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney proposed altering the tools the law gives the public to hold Ottawa to account. The government says its proposals, which are not yet enacted or spelled out in legislation, are meant to improve the access regime’s transparency and performance. 

But they’re raising concerns among Canada’s information commissioner as well as a group of public interest advocates, who say the changes would actually erode the right of Canadians to know how and why decisions are being made in their name.

“It’s just an excuse to get rid of where the real records are,” investigative researcher and public access advocate Ken Rubin said in an interview.

The March 5 proposals were made by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the federal department that oversees government management, as part of a regular review of the legislation.

The department is responsible for administering the Access to Information Act, as well as for developing information management policies for the public service. It’s asking for public feedback on its proposals until June 15.

Some emails and text messages could be shielded under Canada’s proposed Access to Information law changes

Chief among the concerns of Rubin and other opponents to the changes is the government’s proposal to redefine what constitutes an official record.

It could mean the public loses access to what the government, in its proposal, calls “routine communications” and other “transitory” documents, or any records the government decides don’t hold any “business value.”

This could include information in any format, including email, texts or instant messages, and crafted at any stage, like duplicates or drafts, according to Treasury Board spokesperson Barb Couperus in an emailed response to questions from The Narwhal.

Information that holds business value is anything that “documents activities and decisions of government,” Couperus said. The government would determine whether a record holds business value by looking at the content, and not the format of the record, she added.

Removing these records from the access to information regime would help the government reduce “processing pressures” and support “more timely responses for Canadians,” Couperus said.

The government believes the massive increase in digital records, from email to instant messages to workspace platforms, requires better management.

Being able to examine federal public servants’ communications, whether or not they are deemed to have documented government decision-making, is key to understanding how Ottawa actually functions, Rubin said. These records can provide a window into the unvarnished, real-time thoughts of officials, he argued, unlike other types of government documents that get sent through rounds of draft approvals and wind up feeling sanitized.

“If you want to know the dynamics of government and what’s happening, [email and texts] is where you turn,” Rubin said. “The nature of the records, which are more electronic, are the real records, because that’s how people make policy nowadays.”

In just one example of an email-based story, The Narwhal reported via an access to information request that a representative of an influential oilsands lobby group reached out directly to senior Canadian public servants, asking to be part of the Canadian delegation to a United Nations climate summit. 

As a result, the emails showed, the government gave the lobbyists a platform on the world stage, where they tried to “change the international narrative” of the oilsands.

There is no obligation under the Access to Information Act to create records, however once a formal request is made to access documents, they cannot be destroyed, Information Commissioner Caroline Maynard reminded the ethics committee in a February appearance. 

This includes “transitory” records, she noted, as long as they are related to the access to information request.

The commissioner has the power to order the release of records, after a complaint is filed and determined to be well-founded, and if no other resolution can be reached. However the government has suggested it may “revisit” the commissioner’s powers “to make sure they are working as intended.”

Canada’s access to information commissioner ‘troubled’ by proposal

In a March statement, Maynard said she was “troubled” by government proposals that would “weaken the right of access” including “limiting access to ‘official records.’ ”

She told the committee she agreed there were examples — like an email that just says “thank you” — of “a transitory message that we shouldn’t keep.” But she added that meant it was important for federal departments and agencies to have strong retention policies and to train staff in how they work.

On March 26, Rubin, independent journalist and author Dean Beeby and lawyer and academic Matt Malone, who founded the Investigative Journalism Foundation database Open by Default, sent a letter to the members of the House of Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee asking them to “urgently begin an examination of model right to information legislation.” The letter was copied to journalists.

The government is proposing “regressive” changes, the group wrote, adding “we fear the end result will not be helpful and your review cannot wait.”

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right of Canadians to access government information as “quasi-constitutional.” In other words, it holds more fundamental value to society than other laws, while still being outside of the constitution itself.

The federal proposals come as some provincial governments make their own changes to information access laws.

The Alberta government under Premier Danielle Smith passed legislation in 2024 that limited the kinds of records it is obliged to release under that province’s freedom of information law.

And in Ontario, Premier Doug Ford’s government has introduced a bill to change the province’s law to block the public from accessing any documents, emails, call logs or other details from the premier and cabinet ministers, as well as their political staff.

Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Patricia Kosseim called those plans “shocking” and said the proposal to block information held by the premier “is about hiding government-related business to evade public accountability.”

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

Summary

• The Canada Water Agency will cut about 13 jobs to absorb a $5-million budget cut, as Prime Minister Mark Carney seeks to reduce government spending.
• The agency leads ecosystem restoration and protection work in major freshwater ecosystems, such as the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and the Mackenzie River.
• A spokesperson said the agency “remains fully committed to delivering on its mandate to improve freshwater management in Canada.”

Internal government emails show staff at the Canada Water Agency trying to make sense of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s budget cuts in response to questions from the media.

The Canada Water Agency launched in October 2024 to help protect Canada’s fresh water, including leading restoration work to clean up the Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg and other important sources of drinking water. Canada is home to 20 per cent of the world’s fresh water, which is being threatened by climate-driven floods, droughts and algal blooms, as well as industrial contamination and other groundwater stressors.

Carney’s first federal budget proposed $3.8 million in lower spending by 2029-30 at the agency, and a further $1.2 million categorized as a separate “ongoing,” or permanent spending reduction, for a total of $5 million in cuts. They were part of Carney’s $60 billion in proposed cuts — split into $48 billion in spending reductions through 2029-30, and a further $12 billion in “ongoing” cuts with no given end date.

The Narwhal reported on the budget in November, summarizing the government’s proposal as cutting $5 million in total spending at the agency over a number of years. After that story was published, the agency emailed The Narwhal with a request for a “small correction,” asking that figure be changed to $3.8 million.

When The Narwhal asked the agency why it shouldn’t include the $1.2 million in ongoing spending cuts in the figure — which would make it $5 million — internal emails released under Access to Information law show staff reached out to Finance Canada, sharing a screenshot of the budget’s spending review page for the agency with the proposed “ongoing” cut circled in red. 

“Hello Finance Department colleagues, we are fact-checking an article in The Narwhal that mentions the [agency]’s budget cuts, and just want to make sure we are understanding the budget chart correctly,” the agency wrote. 

The water agency asked the Finance Department whether the $5-million figure, which it had already asked The Narwhal for a correction on, was in fact, correct.

After the Finance Department said it would look into the matter, the water agency asked for guidance on how to explain the permanent portion of the spending reductions to journalists.

“Do you have messaging you can share around communicating the ‘ongoing’ to the media?” the staff member asked.

The next day, an official at Finance Canada said the story did not need a correction after all.

Canada Water Agency to cut 13 jobs, but continue restoration and protection of fresh water

Last month, a Canada Water Agency planning document showed how it expected to absorb the first three fiscal years’ worth of cuts, amounting to $2.6 million by 2028-29. One result was the loss of roughly 13 jobs, or what’s known as full-time equivalent positions, from a workforce of 223.

It said it was also planning on “modernizing government operations” and “leveraging new technology” as well as making administrative and support functions more efficient.

At the same time, the agency plans to keep conducting water quality and ecosystem restoration, including in the Great Lakes, it said.

The federal budget says cuts are necessary to “rein in government spending” from pandemic highs. Carney has gone on to trumpet other multibillion-dollar investments in areas like the military, technology and infrastructure that could in turn pose new environmental challenges for water.

Last week, the Canada Water Agency took on a new task when the Carney government promised $3.8 billion to “protect nature” as part of a new environmental strategy. The agency will be working on the country’s first National Water Security Strategy meant to reflect Indigenous knowledge systems including water stewardship.

The Narwhal emailed the Canada Water Agency asking how its spending cuts will affect freshwater stewardship and restoration work.

A spokesperson said the government’s budget cuts would not impact the agency’s “planned activities, staffing and funding commitments for restoration and protection” of its eight freshwater ecosystem initiatives through Canada’s Freshwater Action Plan, a “signature” federal program.

The program includes the Great Lakes, lakes like Simcoe and Winnipeg and rivers like the St. Lawrence in Ontario and Quebec, and the Mackenzie in the Northwest Territories. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s 2023 federal budget allocated $650 million over 10 years to these freshwater initiatives.

“Like all federal organizations, the Canada Water Agency is contributing to the government’s plan to reduce spending, eliminate duplicative programs and focus resources on core priorities,” the spokesperson wrote.

“The agency remains fully committed to delivering on its mandate to improve freshwater management in Canada by providing leadership, effective collaboration federally and improved coordination and collaboration with provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples to proactively address national and regional transboundary freshwater challenges and opportunities.”

The agency also told The Narwhal the reduction in jobs would be staggered, with four next fiscal year, followed by another four the year after and five more after that.

Asked how the agency was planning for the budget’s proposed $1.2 million in permanent cuts, the spokesperson reiterated the budget review was meant to ensure government spending was sustainable and funding cost-effective programs and activities.

Federal funds support water conservation in Ontario and the Great Lakes

The spending reductions come at a time when the Ontario government is amalgamating its watershed protection agencies, called conservation authorities, from 36 to nine, as well as moving to give itself the power to dictate more rules around drinking water. 

Federal funding has been important for conservation authorities because Ontario has not been investing as much in community science and ecosystem restoration, Catherine Febria, the Canada Research Chair in freshwater restoration ecology, said. 

An associate professor at the University of Windsor’s Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, Febria said that the federal “scale of investment is something that the province was never able to do.”

“That was really exciting, it was like a leapfrog in progress with this single initiative, and a number of large-scale projects were invested in [over] the first two years,” she said, naming the freshwater ecosystem initiatives in places like the Great Lakes as one example.

The federal government and Ontario have been working together “for over 50 years” through a series of agreements on protecting and conserving the Great Lakes, the spokesperson for the Canada Water Agency said. 

As one example, the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health lays out how the two will coordinate protection efforts.

“This partnership has led to remarkable improvements, including dramatic reductions in harmful pollutants, and the return of pollution-sensitive species such as bald eagles,” the spokesperson wrote.

Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks did not respond to questions from The Narwhal about how much provincial funding was going towards efforts to restore freshwater ecosystems, and to what extent the ministry was working with the federal water agency.

Febria said given the federal water agency is still relatively new, it’s still not clear what its full mandate will be, not to mention if or how the proposed cuts will impact its work or what exactly may be lost.

She said another Carney initiative, directing $1.7 billion toward a series of scientific initiatives, including research awards attracting high-level talent from abroad, holds promise. Some of the research awards will focus on water security, environment and climate resilience. 

Still, it’s a “tricky balance,” she added, between investing in research and also carrying out on-the-ground work to improve local areas.

“I think we need both,” she said. “When the pendulum swings towards a whole bunch of researchers, that’s great, but at the end of the day, we still need people and organizations and communities on the ground.”

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.

Summary

• The Norwegian company Marinvest Energy AS wants to build Canada’s third largest LNG export facility on the shores of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec
• The company has a non-disclosure agreement with Ottawa which prevents discussion of the proposal with “officials outside the federal government”
• Quebec is an ideal location for ships headed to Europe, but a similar proposal was rejected in 2021 over concerns about risks posed to Indigenous communities and the environment

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

As the war in the Middle East escalates and oil and gas prices surge, a secretive liquefied natural gas (LNG) project proposed for Quebec is steadily advancing.

The LNG project would ship liquefied gas from the deepwater port of Baie-Comeau, a small city on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, to global markets. 

The project would require a new pipeline — through a small portion of northern Ontario and a swath of Quebec — to send mostly fracked gas from Western Canada to Baie-Comeau, in the province’s Côte-Nord region.

But you won’t find any information about this major resource project on the website of Marinvest Energy AS, the Norwegian company behind it.

Nor will you find any information about the Baie-Comeau LNG project on any federal government website, even though access to information documents reveal Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government has established a multi-departmental “deal team” to facilitate the project.

“There’s been no public announcement, no project description and nothing has been made public,” Louis Couillard, Greenpeace Canada’s climate campaigner, told The Narwhal. “I’m just puzzled at how a project can move along like this without an official proposal.” 

In an emailed statement, Marinvest Energy AS confirmed it is in discussions with First Nations as it develops the project and said it will not be giving an interview “at this stage.” In an emailed response to questions, the Quebec government said it never publicly discusses talks it may “have, or not have” with project promoters.

That leaves Montreal-based Couillard and others in the dark, except for information gleaned from access to information requests that are heavily redacted. One thing they do reveal is Marinvest has a non-disclosure agreement with the government of Canada “such that this project is not to be discussed with officials outside the government.” 

So, what else do we know about the Baie-Comeau LNG project? 

And can it go ahead even though another Quebec LNG export proposal was soundly rejected by the provincial and federal governments only a few years ago? At issue then were risks posed to Indigenous communities, beluga whales and attempts to slash greenhouse gas emissions. 

Read on.

First of all, what exactly is the Baie-Comeau LNG proposal? 

Here’s what we know. 

The project has four components: a gas pipeline, an undisclosed “renewable energy supply,” port infrastructure and gas liquefaction and storage. 

That information comes from Invest in Canada, the federal agency that promotes direct investments by foreign companies. It is included in 137 pages of documents Greenpeace obtained through federal access to information legislation and shared with The Narwhal.

The pipeline and renewable energy supply “would be developed in partnership with First Nations,” according to the documents, which say the project is in the “pre-planning stage.”

The documents also say Marinvest “claims it is making progress on project development” and the company may reach out to Canada’s new Major Projects Office with a project description in early 2026. 

In an emailed response to questions, a spokesperson for Canada’s Major Projects Office said the project has not “been referred” to the office and “nor has the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada received an initial project description, which would start the impact assessment process.” The spokesperson said to contact Marinvest Energy for details about the project.

How big is the Baie-Comeau LNG project?

In a word, big. Really big. “It’s a huge project in terms of the volume [of] exports that they want to do,” Couillard said. 

Neither the company nor the Quebec or federal governments have released information about the volume of LNG the company plans to export. But a company representative earlier told Le Devoir the project would export about ten million tonnes of LNG per year.

That compares to about three million tonnes in annual exports from the Cedar LNG project in B.C., about two million tonnes annually from B.C.’s Woodfibre LNG project and about 12 million tonnes annually from the recently approved Ksi Lisims LNG export project, also in B.C.

It would make Baie-Comeau Canada’s third largest LNG export project, after Ksi Lisims and LNG Canada, the country’s first, in Kitimat, B.C.

The access to information documents lift the veil — a wee bit— on the federal government’s level of commitment to the project.

“Given the scale and significance of this energy infrastructure project, we’d like to establish a monthly coordination call to keep federal partners informed of the latest developments,” Anne-Sophie Proutiere, senior federal partnerships advisor for Invest in Canada, wrote to her colleagues last May, according to the documents.

“These ‘deal team’ calls will also serve as a forum for departments to provide guidance and support to facilitate the investment,” Proutiere wrote. 

Proutiere’s email was sent to colleagues in a variety of departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The subject line was “monthly coordination call — Marinvest Energy project”.

Another email said the calls would “coordinate federal FDI [foreign direct investment] efforts to support this investment in Canada.” 

What’s the big deal about secrecy? 

The documents also reveal the non-disclosure agreement Marinvest has with Canada.

Duff Conacher, cofounder of Democracy Watch, a non-profit organization promoting government accountability and corporate responsibility, warns against fast-tracking major resource project decisions like the Baie-Comeau LNG project and failing to consult with the public and stakeholders before final decisions are made.

Fast-tracking “usually leads to waste, and harm and corruption and boondoggles that actually don’t further the public interest,” Conacher said in an interview.

“It’s just impossible for people sitting behind closed doors in Ottawa in the government to make good decisions about anything, because they need to connect to the reality of the impact of the decisions and action,” he said. “And the only way to do that is to consult with the public in a meaningful way before making the decision.”

Conacher said fast-tracking decisions about major resource projects usually slows them down “because once the public learns about it, the pushback is greater than if people had been consulted in the first place.” That pushback can lead to court cases and other challenges, he pointed out. 

The Carney government has demonstrated a lack of commitment to transparency in many areas of government actions, he said.

Couillard said he’s worried people who would be impacted by the Baie-Comeau LNG project and the project’s pipeline won’t have the information “necessary to understand what’s being fast-tracked in their backyards.”

Phew, that’s a lot. So who’s behind the Baie-Comeau LNG project?

Greg Cano, who is connected to B.C.’s contentious Coastal GasLink pipeline, is the chief operating officer for Marinvest Energy Canada, a subsidiary of Marinvest Energy AS. 

According to Cano’s LinkedIn profile, he’s a mechanical engineer who is an executive sponsor and former chief operations officer for Pacific Atlantic Pipeline Construction Ltd, a subsidiary of Italy’s Bonatti Group. 

That name might sound familiar — the pipeline construction company was a primary contractor for the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which ships gas from northeast B.C. to the LNG Canada export terminal in Kitimat. Pacific Atlantic Pipeline Construction made the news in 2022 when Coastal GasLink terminated the company’s contract, alleging poor performance.

You might be scratching your head by now, thinking Cano’s name also sounds vaguely familiar. Based in Calgary, he’s the former longtime director of project planning and execution for TransCanada, a major North America pipeline company now called TC Energy. TC Energy co-owns and operates the Coastal GasLink pipeline. 

And gas for the Baie-Comeau LNG project would be shipped to the new pipeline through TC Energy’s network, according to Couillard. 

If you live on Vancouver Island, there’s all the more reason to recognize Cano’s name. He was the former project lead for the Steelhead LNG, an export project proposed for Vancouver Island that was halted in 2019.

The Narwhal reached out to Cano by email but did not hear back. 

Marinvest Energy AS declined an interview request. “In a spirit of respect and transparency, our priority is to continue discussions with First Nations communities in order to further develop the project’s concepts,” Justin Meloche, the company’s media relations director, said in an emailed statement. 

“Additional information will be made public once the project has reached a more advanced stage and when concrete elements can be shared responsibly,” Meloche added.

Marinvest Energy registered to lobby the federal government in May 2025. The company said it would engage with the Prime Minister’s Office, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Finance Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

The stated goal was to determine “the applicable conditions for implementing a transformative and beneficial energy project for the future of Quebec and Canada.”

Since then, five lobbyists from National Public Relations have filed reports saying they lobbied federal departments, agencies and the Prime Minister’s Office.

The access to information documents note Marinvest is also in discussion with Alberta and Quebec representatives.

“They’ve been lobbying [for] their project behind the closed door for over a year,” Couillard pointed out. “But for the public, there’s absolutely no info except what we find through .” 

“We’re in the dark right now in regards to the regulatory stages that this project is in.” 

Would the Baie-Comeau LNG project export fracked gas?

Yes. The vast majority — 80 to 90 per cent — of natural gas from Western Canada is extracted through hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. The access to information documents state the gas for the project would come from Western Canada.

Steven Haig, a policy advisor for the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s energy program, pointed out fracking is a “particularly emissions-intensive method for producing natural gas. 

“And also, by nature of the process … there are significant risks of methane leaks, which add to the emissions associated with the production,” Haig said in an interview. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and climate change. It can also cause respiratory and cardiovascular issues. 

What about Indigenous communities near the LNG terminal and along the pipeline route? 

Couillard isn’t convinced a majority of Indigenous communities will support the Baie-Comeau LNG project even after consultations. 

“Quebec has a problem,” he said. “It’s all unceded. There’s no treaties here. So technically, all these communities need to give their free, prior and informed consent for the project to go ahead.” The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador formally — and vocally — opposed TransCanada’s bid to build the Energy East bitumen pipeline, which was cancelled in 2017. 

The documents obtained by Greenpeace and other environmental groups list Indigenous communities and organizations that could be affected by the pipeline and LNG project, but all further information is redacted. 

In Ontario, those communities include Apitipi Anicinapek Nation, Métis Nation of Ontario (region three), Taykwa Tagamou Nation, Beaverhouse First Nation, Matachewan First Nation and potentially Mattagami First Nation and Temagami First Nation.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada recommended Marinvest engage with about two dozen Indigenous communities and organizations in Quebec, according to the documents. They include many Cree, Algonquin, Atikamekw and Innu communities, such as Pessamit, an Innu community about 60 kilometres south of Baie-Comeau. 

Along with other Innu communities, Pessamit opposed a different LNG export project proposed for the Saguenay region of Quebec on the grounds it would pose a threat to ancestral lands and impact fish and caribou. Pessamit representatives were unable to respond to a request for comment before publication.

So what about the rejected LNG project in Quebec?

The Quebec government nixed plans for a LNG plant in the Saguenay region in 2021, saying it risked “disadvantaging the energy transition.” The province’s environmental review agency found the project’s risks outweighed its benefits. It said the proponent, GNL Québec Inc., had failed to demonstrate the project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions or accelerate the transition to clean energy. 

The Saguenay LNG project would have been about the same size as the Baie-Comeau LNG project, according to Le Devoir.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada also found the Saguenay LNG project was likely to harm the environment, leading Ottawa to reject the project in 2022. The agency determined the project would have negative effects on nearby Innu communities, harm the beluga whale population through increased shipping traffic and cause greenhouse gas emissions to rise. 

Why ship LNG from Quebec?

Quebec has a distinct advantage over LNG shipped to Europe from other places in North America: geography. 

A typical shipping route between Baie-Comeau and the Dunkirk LNG terminal in northern France would take about eight days, according to the Montreal Economic Institute, a public policy think tank that receives 11 per cent of its annual budget from the oil and gas industry. (Names of individual funders are not disclosed.)

It would take about 14 days at the same speed for LNG from the Gulf of Mexico’s terminals to reach Dunkirk and more than 17 days from Doha, Qatar, another big LNG export terminal.

“Geography plays in Quebec’s favour,” Gabriel Giguère, a senior policy analyst with the society, said in a February news release. “A shorter distance means shorter delivery times, and therefore lower transportation costs, compared to dealing with its main competitors.” 

Will there be an environmental assessment ? 

Some form of environmental assessment is likely if the Baie-Comeau LNG project proceeds, but the process could be fast-tracked. 

In December, the Quebec government introduced Bill 5, which aims to accelerate authorizations for projects deemed to be priorities and of national importance. 

The Quebec bill, which has not been passed by the National Assembly, follows the federal government’s Bill C-5, passed last June. The federal legislation aims to accelerate “nation-building” projects.

What about the Baie-Comeau LNG project’s economics? 

The oil and gas industry is pushing for LNG expansion, pointing to Europe’s desire to replace Russian gas and Canada’s drive to diversify exports following tariffs U.S. President Donald Trump slapped on Canadian goods. 

“But it’s important to remember that these are multi-billion dollar, multi-decade projects and their long-term viability is a serious concern as global markets shift towards cleaner, more reliable energy sources,” Haig, from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said. 

As importers shift towards cheaper, more reliable renewables, “An oversupply of LNG is imminent, with a massive wave of new projects coming online around the world, especially in the U.S. and Qatar,” Haig said.

He said the growing war in the Middle East won’t change that. “There’s a difference between short-term supply disruptions and long-term outlook in the market.” 

Doubling down on LNG is likely to expose Canadians to “more risk and volatility, not less, by linking Canada’s domestic natural gas markets to more volatile international LNG market,” Haig said. Many countries are already investing in safe, clean energy, he pointed out.

“When it comes to backing renewables or fossil fuels, let’s pick the horse that’s already ahead.” 

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

• Despite the Government of Canada’s requirement for provinces and territories to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2030, Saskatchewan is refurbishing its coal plants.
• Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin has the power to intervene and stop Saskatchewan’s pursuit of coal, but her office would not confirm if she’ll do that.
• Many have argued there are cleaner and more economical options than emissions-heavy coal for generating electricity.

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

Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin will work with Saskatchewan to “ensure” it follows the law, her office reiterated, as the province pushes to keep its coal plants open past Canada’s deadline. But when asked if she would intervene to stop the province’s continued reliance on coal-fired electricity, Dabrusin’s office was mum.

Saskatchewan’s decision to extend the life of its coal plants has put it on a collision course with federal rules to phase them out nationwide by Dec. 31, 2029. The province said last year it will spend $900 million refurbishing its coal plants for “years to come.” As of Feb. 26, the provincial Crown corporation SaskPower reported it was relying on 76 per cent fossil fuels for its electricity supply — 28 per cent coal and 48 per cent natural gas.

Canada wants to phase out coal plants, which burn thermal coal to generate electricity, because they’re the highest-emitting sources of carbon pollution and air pollutants in the country. Not only do they emit carbon dioxide, which is driving climate change, they can also emit nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury, which are all on Canada’s toxic substances list and have been linked with respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and acid rain. Ontario’s decision to decommission coal plants followed findings that this pollution was costing the province’s health care system $1 billion per year.

But Saskatchewan Crown Investments Corporation Minister Jeremy Harrison has said the province will “not comply” with federal Clean Electricity Regulations, which were finalized in December 2024 and put limits on emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation starting in 2035. Harrison has said they would create a financial burden on the province and lead to job losses. Both the regulations to phase out coal power and to limit power plant emissions are part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which regulates toxic substances and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Dabrusin, as the minister responsible for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, has the power to intervene when a party is about to violate the law or its regulations.

She can seek an injunction, for example, to prevent a violation, and if a government agency is ignoring an injunction, she can seek a court order to comply or a contempt of court ruling, among other options.

The Narwhal asked the minister’s office on Feb. 20 if she plans on using the powers of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to intervene and ensure either or both of the two regulations are followed.

Dabrusin’s press secretary Keean Nembhard pointed to a statement from the minister posted on the social network X six months earlier, which said phasing out coal was essential for cutting emissions, protecting clean air, supporting public health and meeting climate commitments. 

The post reiterated that federal regulations “require the phaseout of all unabated coal-fired power plants by December 31, 2029.” Unabated means emissions that are released into the atmosphere without any technology like carbon capture.

“We will continue to work with provinces and territories to ensure that all legal requirements and climate commitments are met, while supporting a reliable and affordable transition to clean energy,” the minister stated.

Nembhard also sent a statement to The Narwhal featuring the same quotes.

The federal and Saskatchewan governments signed a deal in 2024 that lets the province temporarily avoid the coal phase-out rules, but it expires at the end of this year.

It says Saskatchewan agreed to have a generating capacity made up of at least 30 per cent non-emitting electricity sources by the end of 2024, 34 per cent by 2027 and 40 per cent by 2030. According to SaskPower figures from June 2025, it appears to have met the 2027 target for total capacity, but how much those different sources contribute to the grid fluctuates regularly.

Saskatchewan Environmental Society will be ‘encouraging’ Dabrusin to intervene

Canada and the United Kingdom co-launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance in 2017 with the goal of phasing out coal power worldwide. At the United Nations climate summit in November 2025, Dabrusin said the “coal-to-clean transition is inevitable.”

In January, a Saskatchewan court dismissed a citizen-led legal challenge against the coal-power extension plan, saying it was a matter of government policy.

The applicants — Citizens for Public Justice, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and three individuals — have filed a notice of appeal. They say the province’s decision, which could see its coal plants still active into the 2040s, violates federal law and was made without sufficient public consultation. 

“We’re going to be encouraging the federal minister to consider getting involved in objecting to the Government of Saskatchewan’s decision to keep its coal-fired power plants running,” Peter Prebble, a member of the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, said in an interview.

“It would be helpful if the federal minister actually intervened and said to Saskatchewan, ‘You can’t do this,’ because she does have that authority.”

Saskatchewan law claims province has ‘autonomy’ over carbon pollution controls

The Saskatchewan legislature passed the Saskatchewan First Act in 2023, which claims the province has “autonomy” over several areas including electricity generation, and any conditions affecting it, such as environmental standards and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The province established a tribunal under that law to examine the federal clean electricity rules. That tribunal produced a report claiming the rules would be a massive financial burden. 

Saskatchewan’s Harrison then used the tribunal’s findings to claim the federal rules were “unconstitutional,” “unaffordable” and “unachievable” and to declare that the province “will not comply with them.”

In 2025, he wrote a letter to SaskPower saying the Government of Saskatchewan had made the decision to extend the life of its coal power plants as a “bridge” to building a new fleet of nuclear power plants. 

“The certainty and security of coal means that it will continue as a pillar of our electrical generation system as we bridge to a nuclear future powered by Saskatchewan uranium,” Harrison wrote in the letter.

That nuclear future will not come until the mid-2030s, and perhaps later. The Crown corporation is planning for a small modular reactor to be built around that time. It also announced in January it was just beginning another process to evaluate large nuclear plants, which take longer to build.

The Narwhal reached out to Harrison’s office and SaskPower but did not receive a response by publication time.

The many alternatives to continuing to rely on coal

Prebble argued there are better and cheaper alternatives to extending the life of coal power. The province could upgrade its grid connections with Manitoba to import more hydropower, generated from dams on the province’s rivers, he said, or invest in electricity efficiency and conservation. He also advocates for boosting renewable capacity in Saskatchewan.

“We’ve got the best solar resource in the country, and we’re barely using it. Less than one per cent of our electricity is coming from solar,” he said. 

“We’ve got an incredible wind resource. Energy storage technologies are improving. There’s lots of potential for co-generation of electricity,” he added. “There were lots of other options.”

The Canada Energy Regulator estimates southern Saskatchewan has some of the highest solar photovoltaic potential in Canada as well as some of the highest wind energy potential.

Prebble also noted the United Nations has asked developed countries to phase out coal power by 2030 and developing countries to follow suit in 2040.

“It’s pretty incredible that a wealthy jurisdiction like Saskatchewan would say that it’s going to keep running its plants, knowing all the dangerous consequences that are associated with climate change,” he said.

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