As the federal election looms, leaders of all political stripes are promising to increase the zero-emission transportation sector through incentives and investments as a key tool to tackle the climate crisis.

But there’s a catch. 

Positioning Canada as a leader in electrifying the transportation sector also means increasing mineral extraction to fuel that growth. Batteries that propel electric vehicles are powered by minerals like lithium, cobalt, graphite and nickel. 

The transition is necessary, given the implications of the alternative: continuing to burn fossil fuels as our means of getting around. The transportation sector in Canada currently accounts for around 25 per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions, around 180 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, according to Natural Resources Canada. As the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned, “unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 C or even 2 C will be beyond reach.” 

At the end of 2020, Canada had over 200,000 electric vehicles on the road and according to International Energy Association projections, that number could rise to over 2.5 million by 2030.

The question is: what does the growth of the electric vehicle sector look like on a landscape level?

In northern Québec, a new lithium-tantalum mine is set to start production in 2024 after receiving approval from the federal government in August, and several other Québec lithium mines are in various stages of exploration and investment. The new Critical Elements Corporation mine will emit an estimated 74,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually, over its 20-year lifespan. In Northwest Territories, mining companies are eyeing cobalt reserves and across the country, mining activity is ramping up as demand increases for other minerals needed for the zero-emissions transportation sector, clean energy and other emerging industries.

Advocates for responsible mining practices caution that getting those minerals out of the ground also comes with its own environmental and social impacts.

“One of our concerns is that the transition to low-carbon energy sources and electric vehicles comes at the expense of negative legacies and mining impacts,” Nikki Skuce, co-founder of BC Mining Law Reform Network, told The Narwhal in an interview. 

For example, Skuce has pointed to the ongoing impact of B.C.’s Mount Polley mine disaster in 2014, after a tailings dam failure led to 24 million cubic metres of mining waste being spilled into an important salmon watershed.

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said the growth of the electric vehicle sector could be a catalyst for Canada to address some of these issues and prevent future disasters. 

“The opportunity for battery manufacturing, which is going to require an increase in metals and minerals, is an opportunity for us to really ensure we clean up mining from an environmental and a social perspective,” she said in an interview.

Liberals and Conservatives promise to support mineral extraction for clean energy

Not all political parties acknowledge the link between mineral extraction and widespread adoption of zero-emission vehicles, but each of the four largest parties vying for federal leadership promise to support the growth of the sector. 

For example, the Green Party’s election platform highlights Canada’s opportunity to “become a world leader in cleantech and renewable energy,” noting those sectors are “where the jobs of the future are, and how we will stay globally competitive and build a prosperous sustainable future.” The party also promised to ban the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2030.

Jamie Kneen, co-founder and communications coordinator at MiningWatch Canada, said he agrees this is necessary and important. But he also believes it would be missing the point to only focus the conversation on increasing electric vehicle sales and infrastructure.

“I think that any commitment or any discussion of zero-emission vehicles has to be in the context of our commitment to not using private vehicles,” he said in an interview. “The bigger question is, how are we going to actually shift the transportation paradigm so that it’s more accessible and more equitable and less carbon intensive? Just putting people into public transit makes a much more immediate and bigger difference, even if they’re diesel buses.”

The Green Party acknowledged this by committing to “ensure access to zero-carbon public transportation, with high-speed rail networks between major cities, and spokes of light rail and electric bus connections across the country.”

While the NDP election platform does not address mining directly, the party has promised to establish a research and development centre to “move forward related technologies such as hydrogen, batteries and energy storage solutions.” The party also committed to the Liberal government’s plan to phase out fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 and said it would increase tax breaks to make it easier for people to purchase electric vehicles.

Both the NDP and the Green Party also promised to expand charging infrastructure, including in rural communities, and invest in public transportation.

The Conservative election platform digs into the projected demand for minerals, with a promise to “take advantage of Canada’s abundant resources of the minerals needed to power our clean energy future.” The platform noted this would include “adopting policies to facilitate the responsible exploitation and mining of lithium.”

The Liberal campaign zeroed in on battery manufacturing and the connection to mining. “As the market for batteries grows, the global race is on to attract new manufacturing facilities and jobs,” the platform notes. The party has promised to “double the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for materials on the Canadian list of critical minerals which are essential to the manufacturing of vital clean technologies, such as batteries.” This proposed tax break would cut costs for mining companies exploring for minerals associated with battery production. 

“One of Canada’s advantages is we have all the metals and minerals needed for batteries.”

Merran Smith, Clean Energy Canada

Kneen said the public should be aware of potential consequences as a result of further subsidizing mineral exploration.

“What it does is support the exploration industry, which doesn’t necessarily lead to mining,” he said. “Something like one in 1,000 exploration projects turns into a mine. What it does is keep the helicopters flying in the Yukon.”

Pierre Gratton, president of the Mining Association of Canada, told The Narwhal more exploration is necessary if Canada wants to compete for a stake in the global battery market.

“We now have one rare earth mine in the Northwest Territories, that’s it. And it’s brand new,” he said in an interview. “There has been a dearth of base metal discoveries in the past 20 years, in Canada and around the world. We do need some new discoveries to come our way if we’re going to meet this challenge.”

He added that most of the domestic mines currently extracting the metals associated with batteries aren’t actually selling them to battery manufacturers.

“There’s very little of Canada’s current production that goes into batteries,” he said. “We are the fifth largest producer of nickel and a major producer of cobalt but it’s used for other purposes.”

Kneen said the truth of where Canadian minerals end up casts a shadow on a growing narrative that mining is vital for, and inextricably linked to, green technology.

“The extent to which [the mining industry] is actually being bolstered by renewable energy demands is, I wouldn’t say marginal, but it’s not as big as industry is trying to tell us.”  

Canada needs to live up to its commitments before expanding mining sector: expert

Gratton said that Canada has an opportunity to use existing laws and regulations to support and promote responsible mining activity associated with battery production. He said that compared to other countries, Canadian mines have a significantly lower carbon footprint, given the access to hydroelectric power. As an example, he said Canada’s nickel production is second only to Finland in terms of greenhouse gases emitted per tonne of saleable product and has a fraction of the emissions per tonne released in countries like Indonesia and the Philippines.

“In terms of fighting climate change, one of the issues is all this extra material that’s going to be needed consumes a lot of energy,” he explained. “If that energy comes from fossil fuels, then we may be, on a net basis, still reducing [emissions] but not as much as we could if we derive those materials from mines that don’t use fossil fuels, or use much less.”

“I’m sure Canadians wouldn’t want Canada to be the miner to the world for all of our electric cars but I think there would be pretty good support for Canada having a piece of it, knowing that if we didn’t it would be coming from other places where they wouldn’t be done as well,” he added. 

China, for example, is well-positioned to secure a monopoly on the market if other countries don’t step up, according to Gratton. The Chinese government has less stringent rules and regulations on mining activity, both in terms of environmental impacts and human rights.

Skuce said Canada does have an advantage, if it lives up to its federal and provincial commitments.

“Like British Columbia, the federal government has now passed the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and needs to ensure that it is respecting that, which means mining companies should require free prior and informed consent on the ground,” she said.

Manufacturers are increasingly demanding assurances of responsible mining practices. Gratton said members of the Mining Association of Canada commit to a sustainable mining protocol framework, which include guidelines for climate change, biodiversity, water stewardship and more. 

“It’s an emerging global system that provides the kind of assurance that the Apples and the auto manufacturers are looking for.”

The framework, which is informed by an advisory panel that has included members of MiningWatch Canada and former Green leader Elizabeth May, has been adopted in countries like Finland, Australia, Argentina and Botswana, he said, though each is at a different stage in implementing the protocols.

Kneen agreed the association’s framework is an important part of helping the industry adopt better practices and described it as a “useful tool for companies,” but as a new BC Mining Law Reform Network and MiningWatch Canada report points out, the framework is voluntary and B.C. alone is home to dozens of mines either actively polluting watersheds or posing risk to downstream habitat and communities.

Critics warns recycling needs support as electric vehicle sector grows

While Kneen and Skuce admitted mining is likely to play a prominent role in the transition to clean energy and the zero-emission transportation sector, they both stressed the need for Canada to simultaneously focus on reduction and recycling as part of the solution.

“The easiest way to avoid mine waste problems is to make less mine waste,” Kneen said. He added current recycling facilities aren’t yet able to extract much lithium during the process.

“The cobalt or the nickel and other parts are kind of easier to separate out,” he said, suggesting that Canada could invest in research and development to reduce the amount of waste associated with batteries and support recycling facilities.

Skuce agreed.

“We need to look at reducing the waste [extracting] raw material produces and way more on recycling.”

B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy announced last week that it will include electric vehicle batteries in the province’s five-year recycling strategy. The strategy puts the onus on producers — manufacturers, distributors and retailers — to take responsibility for the full life-cycle of products, to encourage a circular economy.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals promised in their respective campaigns to support the growth of battery recycling in Canada.

Skuce noted there are still important outstanding issues in the mining industry that federal, provincial and territorial governments need to address before supporting industry growth.

“There’s all sorts of innovations that we need to make sure we’re looking at while at the same time making sure that we’re closing the gap on regulations, laws, compliance and enforcement so that we can be a part of [the transition] without putting watersheds and communities at risk.” 

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.

Environmental issues are top-of-mind for more Canadians than ever before in this year’s election. It’s an important issue to Canadians in every riding — and the parties know it.

In a Forum Research poll in July, 26 per cent of respondents said the environment was their top concern, leapfrogging the economy as the number one issue. In the 2015 election, the economy was by far the most important issue to voters. 

It’s also only the second election in which all four major parties openly accept the reality of climate change as something that demands our attention. Strategies vary on how to reduce carbon emissions, but at least federally, it’s no longer a question of debating the science. 

Climate change policy isn’t the only way the parties are flexing their environmental bona fides, however: conservation, transportation, and energy are on the platforms, as are lower impact but still high-profile issues like plastic pollution and green jobs. 

It all makes for a lot of platforms to scroll through. So we bring you a rundown on what environmental policies the federal parties are offering Canadians in the 2019 election.

A raging wildfire consumes the forest next to Highway 63 south of Fort McMurray. Photo: Chris Schwarz / Government of Alberta

Climate Change

Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet; its northern reaches are warming even more quickly. That has consequences for polar bears, sure, but it’s also a threat to northern roads and communities. It’s exacerbating wildfires and a biodiversity crisis. So it’s not surprising to see the issue being taken on by the federal parties. 

Justin Trudeau won on a platform in 2015 that heavily referenced climate change while promising specific solutions to that and other environmental problems. Andrew Scheer appears eager to shed the Conservative party’s reputation for environmental backwardness, while sticking to its expected business-friendly approach. Elizabeth May’s Greens are advocating for radical overhauls to the economy. And the NDP under Jagmeet Singh is advocating for more ambitious measures than the Liberals while maintaining many of the broad strokes of their plan. 

(Note: we’ve decided that Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada, not to be confused with the other Maxime Bernier’s Rhinoceros Party, won’t be evaluated in this story. That might be because they are devout climate deniers and therefore irrelevant to this conversation, or it could just be because they have never cracked five per cent in the polls. We’ll keep you updated if they come up with any innovative environmental policy…)

—————

The Liberals so far have not released their platform in full but have instead spent the summer touting and reinforcing the 50 or so specific actions they’ve taken since 2015. Chief among those is the carbon tax, which kicked in in April at $20 a tonne and will rise each year up to $50 a tonne by 2022. (Update: The Liberal Party of Canada released their climate plan on September 24).

United Nations economists say that to be effective, a carbon price will have to come much higher by 2030 — to at least $135 per tonne. The Liberals have no such plan. The carbon tax has also been criticized for being overly cautious with respect to industry, allowing for too much pollution in the name of not harming competitiveness (I wrote a whole separate explainer about that, here).

The Liberals have done other work to curb emissions, however. They’ve set a target of 30 per cent of light-duty vehicles being electric by 2030, and brought in a new fuel standard to limit the carbon content in fuels used in transportation, heating and industry. 

They’ve invested billions in public transit in order to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation, but appear to have abandoned a promise to “rapidly expand” the federal fleet of electric vehicles. In their last budget, they brought in a $5,000 subsidy for new electric vehicle purchases.

The Conservatives have come late to the climate party, but they have shown up at last. The title of Andrew Scheer’s environment and climate platform, “A Real Plan,” seems to be intended as a dig at the Liberals but comes across as a marvellous self-own. Regardless, the plan is indeed real and acknowledges the reality of man-made climate change in its third paragraph. 

The party has said it supports the Paris Accord, but stopped short of committing to meeting Canada’s targets.

In contrast to the carbon tax, which the Conservatives have long branded as a “tax grab” and which they plan to repeal, the Conservatives’ climate plan is intended to be consumer-friendly, depending on new technology rather than a reduction in consumption or expensive overhauls. It would require big polluters to pay into an investment fund that would then be spent on green tech. However, it’s not clear exactly how that investment would actually meet the planned reductions.

The Conservatives do not mention transit in their climate plan, but do promise to “provide regulatory support” for an LNG facility on the West Coast that they say could lower the emissions of marine transportation. They also say they will work on developing electric vehicle technology, but make no promises on that front.

A big part of the Conservatives’ plan is to help other countries lower their own emissions, which they argue can be done for cheaper in developing countries, where more emissions-intensive industries like coal-fired power plants are more common. The Conservatives have promised to scrap the Liberals’ fuel standard. The party is also pushing capture and storage, which has been developed with some success in Saskatchewan and Alberta but not rolled out yet in any large-scale way.

The Green Party has presented the most radical plan for climate change of any party. It is symbolically heavy on urgency — for instance, establishing a non-partisan “survival cabinet” that would have the same grave mandate as a wartime cabinet — and includes the most ambitious measures to cut emissions seen yet on the federal level. The party proposes doubling Canada’s emissions reduction targets, and would raise the carbon tax as high as the United Nations says it needs to be, to $130 a tonne by 2030.

The Greens promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, ban fracking and oil imports and eliminate coal and natural gas by 2030. The latter has been criticized, along with their plan to retrofit every building in Canada to be carbon neutral, as not feasible within that timeline. Currently fossil fuels make up 20 per cent of Canada’s electricity generation, with huge regional disparities, and vacating every home in the country for retrofits would entail a scale of displacement without precedent in Canada. (Party leader Elizabeth May likened the retrofits to a WWII-level challenge but it’s also a major part of the Greens’ energy strategy — see below.)

The Greens are also planning mitigation measures, to “prepare for those levels of climate crisis we can no longer avoid,” according to the party’s platform. Those include fortifying dykes and dams against flooding, buying water bombers and assisting those who work in sectors that will be first affected by climate change. 

The Greens are the only party so far to mention rail, which they say would get new investment. The Green Party would require that all new cars sold in Canada be electric by 2030. They would increase bus service to rural areas, purchase electric buses, make employer-provided bus passes tax free and add to low-emissions transportation in cities such as bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure. The party would also oppose expansion of infrastructure that enables urban sprawl.

The New Democratic Party plans to maintain the carbon price set out by the Liberals until 2022, with a few tweaks. The party would remove the additional exemptions the Liberals added to their carbon price for heavy polluters, making them work harder to remain competitive internationally. Rebates on the carbon tax would be changed; rather than being sent out to all Canadians, the rebates would no longer be sent to the wealthiest.

The NDP also promises a Canadian Climate Bank, which would provide $3 billion for low-carbon innovation. Low-interest loans would be offered for renovations, on a longer timeline than the Greens, with plans to have all housing retrofitted by 2050.

On transportation, the NDP says it will increase funding, particularly to low-emissions transit projects. It would maintain the $5,000 incentive for electric vehicle purchases while eliminating federal sales tax on them. For electric vehicles made in Canada, the NDP says it would eventually raise that incentive to $15,000. It expands on the Liberals’ seemingly broken promise to increase the federal fleet of electric vehicles, saying all government vehicles, which includes things like Canada Post trucks, will all be electric by 2025.

Site C dam construction along the Peace River, B.C., in the summer of 2018. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

Energy

Energy is the root of the climate crisis: from coal-fired electrical plants to gasoline-driven cars to bunker oil-burning ships, Canadians pump a lot of carbon into the air. But our energy system causes other problems too, like the deterioration of air quality and pollution of waterways, oil spills on land and sea, and the destruction of land for hydroelectricity.

Some of the most heated political battles in recent memory in Canada are based on energy. The Trans Mountain pipeline has pitted First Nations, the federal government, two provincial governments as well as municipalities against one another, and has divided public opinion. Likewise for the now-defunct Energy East and Northern Gateway projects. And it’s not just fossil fuels: the Site C dam is an ongoing saga that is tearing apart northern B.C. (if you’re not up to date, seriously, check out the award-winning reporting by The Narwhal’s Sarah Cox on this. It’s the best around.)

Given these struggles, the parties all have their own promises to reform Canada’s energy grid — or, in the case of the Conservatives, return it to the way it was. 

—————

The NDP has set a target of powering Canada with zero-carbon electricity by 2050. The interim goal is “net carbon-free electricity” by 2030. So what’s the difference there? Net carbon-free usually refers to electricity generation that includes carbon offsets (think carbon capture, planting trees or subsidizing clean energy) — whereas zero-carbon energy would mean no carbon is produced during generation. Hope that helps.

The party would abandon the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which the Liberals bought in as-is condition for $4.5 billion but which will eventually cost nearly double that to build. In the same vein, the party would stop fossil fuel subsidies, which, Environmental Defence estimates, total $3.3 billion a year. 

A final, major element of the NDP energy platform is centred around manufacturing: building components for green energy in Canada, building an interconnected smart energy grid and developing locally-owned energy projects.

The Green Party would likewise eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and go further by divesting from fossil fuels at the federal level — an example they hope other jurisdictions would follow. The Greens would also abandon Trans Mountain, along with all other pipeline expansion, ban oil imports and support the existing tanker ban on the north coast of B.C.

The Greens oppose nuclear energy, saying it’s too costly and too risky. They plan to develop a national electricity grid plan, and transition the current electrical grid to a more efficient system. The party wants wind to make up 20 per cent of national electricity production by 2025 — a fourfold increase — as well as ramping up geothermal and solar to each bring 25 new gigawatts of electricity online. The ban on oil imports the party has suggested would switch Canada’s oil supply to one entirely dependent on Alberta, which is in line with what the Conservatives have promised for 2030.

Its boldest claim is that through retrofits and efficiency improvements, “Canada could easily reduce energy demand by 50 per cent.” 

The Greens see demand for oil and gas declining, and its policies would accelerate that decline. To soften the blow to workers in the oil and gas industry, the Greens would bring in a retraining program to teach them how to work in renewables — for example, drilling wells for geothermal.

The Liberal Party, as mentioned, hasn’t released their platform. We’ll have to wait and see what they propose to do about energy next, but so far it’s been a mix of buying a pipeline, powering a natural gas production and transportation boom with “clean” energy, and not developing an energy strategy. 

In 2017 the government introduced legislation to ban oil tankers off the north coast of B.C.

In January Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced federal support for Canada’s first geothermal electrical plant, in Saskatchewan.

The Conservatives propose, well, the opposite of whatever Trudeau has proposed. They would undo the tanker ban and repeal the Liberals’ Bill C-69. That controversial bill brought in new requirements for environmental assessments of major projects but is highly unpopular with certain industries, which have lobbied extensively to get rid of it.

Also on the topic of regulatory burden, the Conservatives would provide “certainty on approval timelines and schedules,” and “end foreign-funded interference in regulatory hearings.” It’s unclear if that would include silencing oil and gas companies that are foreign-owned.

Expect more opposition when the Liberal platform is out.

Mount Edziza Provincial Park, B.C. Photo: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Land, water, wildlife and ocean conservation

The balance of protecting wildlife and its habitat from human incursion while also allowing for economic activity is a delicate one. More often than not, the needle has gone toward development in Canada, to the detriment of species at risk like Southern Resident Killer Whales, most caribou herds, as well as plant species like the whitebark pine.

The Trudeau government has made significant progress toward meeting its so-called Aichi Biodiversity targets: it pledged to protect 17 per cent of terrestrial area and inland waters, and 10 per cent of its oceans, by 2020. A flurry of big new protected areas has moved that along. But meanwhile it has continued to advance some projects, like the Trans Mountain pipeline and a new road to the Arctic coast, that would interfere with sensitive habitat.

—————

The Conservatives included in their plan “a comprehensive update of Canada’s strategy to protect our fisheries, forests, agricultural lands, [and] tourist areas.” That would include a focus on invasive species, which can threaten native ecosystems, and controlling pests “that

pose a substantial threat to forest and aquatic health,” as well as conducting a $15 million inventory of wetlands.

As during the Harper years, the language in the Conservative plan favours species and habitats of economic importance over a more holistic approach. It promises to review how land is set aside for protection, and whether communities have enough input.

The Conservatives continue to support the Aichi targets (that calls, among other things, for 17 per cent of terrestrial areas and inland water and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas to be conserved by 2020), which were first agreed to by the Harper government. They also supported the passage of a Liberal fisheries bill that restored habitat protections gutted by the Harper government, with minor revisions. 

The centrepiece of the NDP conservation plan is to enshrine the right to a healthy environment in law through what they’re calling the Environmental Bill of Rights. It will guarantee the right to clean land, air and water, and bring in a national freshwater strategy.

They are also upping the ante on land protection: whereas the Aichi targets only extend up to 2020, the NDP wants to accelerate the protection of land and protect 30 per cent of land, freshwater and oceans by 2030. That’s nearly double the land and freshwater, and triple the amount of ocean protection that the current targets call for.

The NDP promises to use “all the tools available” under the Species At Risk Act, though not to make any changes to it. They say they will work with provinces and territories to “protect waterways under international agreements,” presumably referring to rivers like the trans-border Elk River, contaminated on the Canadian side by selenium from coal mining.

Part of the Greens’ conservation plan focuses on restoring ecosystems that have been damaged already — they would conduct an inventory of contaminated water bodies and groundwater, and work on figuring out how to clean them up, while empowering their own departments and agencies to restore aquatic ecosystems. 

The Greens would also increase funding to Parks Canada and accelerate the creation of new marine protected areas and parks, with a $500 million “completion budget” intended to have the entire parks system in place by 2030. They would also end trophy hunting across Canada, while supporting other types of hunting such as Indigenous subsistence hunting and hunts of other non-threatened species.

Selection of Species at Risk would no longer be subject to cabinet but rather by the recommendation of scientists, increase funding for endangered species, and increase penalties for killing them.

Photo: Taylor Roades / The Narwhal

Extras

Each party has taken up their own causes that are related to the environment but that don’t have direct bearing on any one of the topics above. We’ve reported on some of these big issues, from environmental law to corporate accountability to ocean plastics, but expect to hear more of these sexy, sexy issues arise throughout the election.

Among the Liberal Party’s side-projects has been plastics: a plan to start banning single-use plastics starting around 2021, committing $100 million to reducing plastic waste in developing countries, and banning microbeads in cosmetics and other products. 

The NDP wants to intensify the Liberals’ approach to plastics, by banning single-use plastics by 2022. They also want to provide training and re-training for people affected by climate action and encourage “local food hubs” while reducing food waste and protecting pollinator health.

The Conservatives, sticking to their push for private solutions to environmental issues, want to issue a “green patent credit” for eco-friendly technologies. They would modernize air quality regulations. They would also re-establish a policy advisory panel made up of hunters, fishers and conservation groups.

The Greens have a plan to bring in a youth-driven “Community and Environment Service Corps,” which would create 160,000 minimum wage jobs for young people to work in climate mitigation, environmental rehabilitation, and other similar projects across the country. They would also develop laws to will allow non-Canadians to sue Canadian corporations over violations of “basic human, environmental, or labour rights in their own countries.” 

—————

So there you have it. The environment is a major part of this year’s election, and the parties are all going to be jockeying for your vote on this issue. Whether it’s the Conservatives’ industry-led approach, the Liberals’ record of restoring protections and establishing new protected areas, the New Democrats’ promises to take the Liberal plan ever further, or the Greens’ promises to make drastic changes, one of these strategies will have to win out. 

Watch for splashy new environmental announcements as the election goes on — and watch this space for analysis.

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.

Earlier this summer, when the Quebec environmentalist Steven Guilbeault announced his Liberal candidacy for the Montreal riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie (currently held by the NDP), the Calgary Herald ran a headline saying “Justin Trudeau has found his Tzeporah Berman.”

Guilbeault is a household name in Montreal and much of Quebec. He co-founded one of Quebec’s leading environmental organizations, Équiterre, where he worked as senior director until November of 2018. Prior to that he was the Quebec bureau chief for Greenpeace from 2000 to 2007, and headed their climate and energy campaign for three years before that.

He has been a vocal opponent of oilsands expansion and new pipelines across Canada, including the Trans Mountain pipeline that would transport Alberta oilsands to Burnaby on the West Coast. He and the prime minister have agreed that Guilbeault will maintain his opposition to the pipeline while seeking to join the party that has staked so much of its political fortune on pushing it through.

Laurier-Sainte-Marie is five provinces away, but Guilbeault’s nomination for the Liberals has raised a lot of eyebrows in British Columbia. Trudeau clearly hopes Guilbeault will re-establish Liberal credibility in an environmental community that feels deeply betrayed; Conservatives are hoping the announcement will cement their own support among oilsands proponents elsewhere in the country; and Steven Guilbeault just wants “to move the needle.”

The Narwhal reached out to Guilbeault to discuss his decision to enter politics, why he chose the Liberals and the moral dilemmas of crafting climate policy in the world’s fourth-largest oil-producing nation.

The following interview has been condensed for clarity and length.

Back in 2001, you scaled the CN Tower for Greenpeace and unfurled a banner which read “CANADA AND BUSH: CLIMATE KILLERS.” Would that younger version of you be surprised that today’s version of you is running for office?

A friend of mine, many years ago, said this about me: He said that I was a radical pragmatic. In the sense that the path of change that you and I and many others are asking our society to do is pretty radical, from where we are to where we feel we have to be. But there’s also a part of me that understands there are constraints, and that it can’t happen overnight. And sometimes, you need to climb the CN Tower to make people pay attention to what’s happening, and sometimes you need to sit down with people who you may disagree with, may have different points of view, and maybe even different values, to try and find a common ground to move the needle a little bit.

I know some of my climate change colleagues say, you know, we need to move the needle much faster, and I totally agree with that. But when we go outside of the climate activist circle, it’s not that obvious. My mom lives in a pulp-and-paper town four hours northeast of Montreal. She gets climate change a little bit and her boyfriend does too, but they don’t get the emergency. I think we have to find a way to move that, but we have to do this by bringing alongside as many people as possible.

So I think the pragmatic part of me that was climbing the CN tower would understand what I’m doing now. I think.

What do you think you can do as a politician that you couldn’t do as an activist, and why join the Liberals?

Well there are a couple reasons I decided to run for the Liberals. In my view, and I could be wrong about this, but in my view, they’re the only party that can block the Conservative Party from becoming the next government. … I’ve heard some people say, well, we [the Greens or the NDP] could hold the balance of power in a minority Conservative government. Well, look at what that did [for] us when we had a minority conservative government. That’s when all the cutbacks started on efficiency, on climate change, on environmental education, let alone everything that had to do with immigration, minority rights, and so on.

When I look at what [the Liberals] have done, I had no problem rallying behind them. They’ve been a very active government on climate change in the last four years. We had no environmental or climate policies to speak of in 2015, and now we have a whole bunch of them.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Is there so much more work that needs to be done? Absolutely. Am I pissed because of the pipeline? Yes. But when I look at everything that’s happened, I know that I can contribute to help them be more, and we can go even faster. And that’s what I’m hoping I can do, if I’m elected and if the Liberals form the next government.

I was on stage with Rachel Notley when she launched her climate leadership plan, and many environmental groups, I remember Greenpeace and 350 were talking about “this historical moment,” and Pembina was there, and a bunch of other groups were on stage — we all knew that she wanted a pipeline! She’d said so many times. But we still supported her because we thought that this was a bit of a revolution in Alberta, and there was no chance on earth that we would get anything close to that with the Conservatives.

“Is it perfect? Of course not. Is there so much more work that needs to be done? Absolutely. Am I pissed because of the pipeline? Yes,” Guilbeault told The Narwhal. Photo: Valerian Mazataud / The Narwhal

In 2017, Bill McKibben wrote in The Guardian that Trudeau was “a disaster for the planet.” What would you say to him now?

I would tell him I admire his work, I’ve been a big fan of his since the publication of his book Hope, Human and Wild over 20 years ago. But I disagree with him, just like I disagree with George Monbiot [The Guardian’s environmental writer] when he says that Angela Merkel is the worst climate person on the planet because she hasn’t been doing enough on climate change. And somehow they’re putting Trudeau and Merkel on the same level as people like Harper and Trump. To me, to paint everything in such black and white contrast — I mean if we were to ask which government of the world is doing a good job, they would say no one. And I understand, I think we can say that no one is doing a good enough job. But to say that they’re doing nothing because they’re not doing everything is overly simplistic.

Yes, it’s a good rallying cry to mobilize activists. But I’ve been doing lots of public engagements over the last 20 years, every year I speak to three to five thousand people. It’s been my experience that this type of message, if you’re trying to convince people who aren’t convinced, it doesn’t work. They change the channel. They say, ‘these people, you can’t talk to them.’

“I think we can say that no one is doing a good enough job. But to say that they’re doing nothing because they’re not doing everything is overly simplistic.”

The moral clarity of climate change is so stark, it’s completely unforgiving; but that comes crashing into democracy, which is founded on the need to compromise – 

And the fact that not everybody is following the issue as closely as we are, and I think we tend to lose sight of that because we tend to talk to ourselves.

But is that an inherent characteristic of activism? Is it possible to be an activist and really push society to change as fast as possible, while acknowledging the need for compromise?

I think it’s a human characteristic. We tend to talk and hang out with people who have similar views as we do. We don’t like to get our views or values confronted too much. So the business people do that, and the trade union people do that, and we do it too. So it’s not something that’s specific to activism.

Throughout B.C., there’s this near-universal sense of betrayal amongst the environmental community over Trans Mountain. It’s reached a point where the Trudeau memes you see coming out of Vancouver have become a perfect mirror image of the ones emanating from Calgary. Both sides see him as a pawn of the other.  So what would your message be to the environmental community out here?

I know many of the activists. I understand their frustration and their anger. I get it. I’ve been trying to tell them — and it’s not easy, and I understand it — but they should not let their anger cloud their judgement. If the Conservatives win the next election, then the $30 billion that we have for transit across the country, I don’t think it’s staying. The $20 billion that’s going to be invested in green infrastructure, gone. The $2.5 billion for clean technology, gone. The money for purchasing electric vehicles, gone. New and better environmental impact assessment and public consultation? We clearly know where the oil industry and the conservative forces of Canada are on this. This is a very clear example of where the Trudeau government stood their ground and said no to changes that were clearly written by the oil industry. If the Conservatives come in, this is also gone. Carbon pricing, obviously it’s gone. So, someone is going to tell me that all these things don’t matter?

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, do you feel the environmental community has trouble giving credit where it’s due?

Yes, I do, and I understand why. I’m putting myself in their shoes, and if instead of Trans Mountain we were talking about Energy East, and if the federal government instead of investing in Trans Mountain would have invested in Energy East, I think I would be very angry right now. I think I’d be very unhappy. And I don’t know, would I be running for the Liberals if that happened? It’s a really good question. So I get it. But I’m asking them to think long and hard about what the alternative is …

It’s an emotional discussion, and I get that. You know, it’s always angered me — when you sit across the table from someone and they say well can we have a rational, unemotional discussion about this? Dude! You can’t! What are you talking about?  It’s the future of our planet, and what kind of planet will I leave to my kids, and you want me to have an unemotional conversation about it? Forget it. That doesn’t mean I have to lose my judgement and my emotions have to take over everything. So I would never ask my colleagues to leave their emotions at the door.

Guilbeault, one of the founders of Quebec environmental group Equiterre, says he’s not going into politics to “play some political game.” Photo: Valerian Mazataud / The Narwhal

Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott went through this door before you, and it didn’t go so well. Why do you think it’ll go differently for you?

I don’t know either Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott. What I can say for myself is I have 20 years of experience working on public policy around climate change, as an activist, not as someone in a political party. I understand we need to compromise to be able to move forward sometimes. I’m going in there knowing there’s no way I’m going to win 100 per cent of my battles 100 per cent of the time. And I’m hoping to win enough battles that, at the end of this four-year period, if all goes well, I can say I’ve contributed positively to the trajectory of where my country is going. That’s my hope, but I’m going in there with no illusions.

I’m envisioning a scenario where you win your seat in October, the Liberals win a majority government, the lawsuits against Trans Mountain are defeated and construction begins in earnest. Now the biggest environmental protest in Canadian history takes place on Burnaby Mountain, and you are part of the government that has to confront it. That’s a pretty awkward scenario, no?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve played that scenario in my head in the last few months. Which is why I felt it was necessary for me to be crystal clear with the prime minister and the party regarding my position on this. I was against [Trans Mountain] a few weeks ago, I’m still against it today, and I will be against it tomorrow and in the months to come. I told him I disagreed and I said it publicly. So I imagine it’s going to be a very uncomfortable moment, if that scenario as you described it happens. By making this decision I’ve accepted that I may end up in that situation. I’ve seen a number of political commentators say that me expressing my disagreement with the pipeline publicly might come with a political cost to my career. If so, so be it. I couldn’t see a scenario where I would change my mind. I’m not going into politics to simply play some political game. I’m going there to try and continue making progress on the issue I’ve been working on for the last 25 years.

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

In August 2014, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau made the trek to the tiny Gitga’at community of Hartley Bay, located along Enbridge’s proposed oil tanker route in northwestern B.C.

There, in the village of 200 people accessible only by air and water, he met with community elders and Art Sterritt, executive director of the Coastal First Nations.

“He came to Gitga’at because he wanted to make sure he was making the right decision in terms of Northern Gateway and being there certainly confirmed that,” Sterritt told DeSmog Canada on Tuesday.

“My confidence level went up immensely when Justin … visited Gitga’at.”

Two months before that visit, in May 2014, Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa that if he became prime minister “the Northern Gateway Pipeline will not happen.”

With Monday’s majority win by Trudeau, Sterritt — who retired three weeks ago from his role with Coastal First Nations — says he is “elated” and “Northern Gateway is now dead.”

“I know they’re going to live up to the commitments that they’ve made. I have absolutely no doubt about that,” Sterritt said, while taking a break from carving a totem pole. “Tears of joy will be flowing in Gitga’at.”

The fight against the 525,000-barrel-a-day oilsands pipeline goes back more than a decade.

“We’ve gone through some tough times with all that’s been peddled in the past decade, especially the last few years — all that’s been done to pave the way for oil,” Sterritt said. 

“There were many, many, many people who worked every day to stop Northern Gateway from jeopardizing everything we stand for.”

'Promises are Promises': Trudeau Will Face Corporate Pressure, But Must Hold Firm

Gerald Amos, former elected chief of Haisla, told DeSmog Canada communities are  going to have to keep up that fight to make sure the project dies.

“There’s a pretty darn good sense now that it won’t see the light of day,” Amos said. “It’s going to be a huge challenge for Justin Trudeau to make it happen, but promises are promises.”

That “challenge” will be in the form of corporate pressure, Amos said.

“I don’t think we should underestimate the power of the corporations,” he said. “I think that there’s going to be a lot of pressure come to bear on them from the corporate world.”

Smithers Mayor Taylor Bachrach is also cautiously optimistic.

“There are probably community leaders and First Nations and people all across the northwest waking up this morning with a sense of relief that that particular pipeline is no longer looming over our heads,” Bachrach told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s been a long road and it’s brought people together, but it will be nice to move on to other conversations about the future of our region.”

Bachrach said it’s too early to say definitively that Northern Gateway is dead, but added: “Mr. Trudeau has made clear commitments to the region and I look forward to having him follow through.”

Enbridge did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

Fight Againt Enbridge Northern Gateway Has Brought Communities Together

Terry Teegee, tribal chief for the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, said he’s always been confident Northern Gateway will be defeated due to court cases led by two Carrier-Sekani communities.

But he also emphasized that communities can’t let up until the project is dead for sure.

“I hope he lives up to that commitment and kills the project,” Teegee said. “Now that we have them in a place where we want them, we can’t let up politically or judicially until the project is dropped.”

Fighting Enbridge “has cost a lot of energy and a lot of resources and a lot of our time,” Teegee said.

But the fight has also brought communities together.

“We really are testing our rights and title, we’re testing our mettle as people. It really helped us develop relationships beyond our asserted title,” Teegee said.

“Asserting our rights and title collectively, we can really determine our own future, we can determine how development happens in our territory, we can determine what happens on a national scale. It would really send a message to oil and gas companies that it’s not ‘business as usual.’ You really need consent of First Nations."

Teegee thinks the battle over Northern Gateway has planted the seeds for a more proactive, productive conversation about the future.

“The next step is to keep the momentum going and start really discussing our issues. I think we need to have a real talk about energy and having an energy strategy for our people,” he said. 

Conservative Bullying Backfired in B.C.

Sterritt said ultimately the Conservatives misjudged British Columbia.

“Harper and Joe Oliver made the mistake of thinking they were going to bully their way through British Columbia,” Sterritt added. “They realized they made a mistake and have been pretty quiet for a long time.”

Enbridge’s Northern Gateway proposal hasn’t been the only oil pipeline proposed for northern B.C., however.

“We’ve got lots of noise,” Sterritt said. “We’ve got Mr. Black pushing for a refinery. You’ve got Eagle Spirit proposing something similar. But these are all just proposals. I think in light of how the people in the Pacific Northwest look at their place, I think these other projects are going to be hard-pressed to try to move ahead in the wake of Northern Gateway.”

In June 2010, the Liberal Party of Canada declared its support for legislation banning oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast. If that legislation is passed, it will spell the end of all oil tanker proposals for northern B.C.

Trudeau has also said the review process of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil export plan, which would see hundreds of oil tankers a year transit Vancouver’s harbour, will need to be re-done.

Image: Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Art Sterritt walk on the boardwalk in Hartley Bay, B.C.

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.