Fast-tracking projects has definitely been the priority. But weakening regulations, ranging from pesticide approvals to project environmental assessments, risks tarnishing Mark Carney’s well-earned reputation as an environmental advocate.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 15, 2026.

OTTAWA—The government’s environmental agenda has faced some scrutiny, and there is definitely pushback from within the Liberal Party.

Prime Minister Mark Carney must be aware of the criticism because at the annual funders’ Laurier Club party last week, he devoted a large part of his speech to the subject of Canadian protected areas.

He pledged to pursue a 30 per cent set-aside of Canada’s vast landscape as protected areas that can never be developed.

Born in Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, the prime minister understands the value of wide open spaces.

For anyone who knows the area, Fort Smith is a town on the edge of one of the only existing wild buffalo runs in the world.

Wood Buffalo National Park straddles the Northwest Territories and Alberta, and is Canada’s largest park, an area larger than Switzerland.

It is home to the world’s biggest free-roaming wood bison herd, and is the only breeding ground for the endangered whooping crane.

It also includes the world’s largest dark sky preserve, a sky free of manmade illumination pollution, which supports animal and bird habitat and survival.

Carney’s move to set aside these lands is extremely important, but the attention paid to this promise last week made it clear that the prime minister is conscious of his current fragile standing in the environmental community.

With more than a dozen caucus members internally lobbying on the environmental front, and former environment minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent announcement that he will resign his House seat have highlighted a potential rift.

Carney has been lauded across the country by business communities because he is focusing the government on moving quickly to surmount regulatory hurdles blocking major projects.

But, behind the scenes, many long-standing Liberals are asking why Carny appears to be backing off on historical environmental commitments.

Former Quebec minister and federal MP Clifford Lincoln was in town last week as the guest of House Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia.

Lincoln was a key partner in regulatory legislation passed by the Liberal government at the end of the last century.

Full disclosure: he was my parliamentary secretary, and was the main reason why we were able build opposition support for tough legislation in four key areas.

As a team, we created the commissioner for the environment and sustainable development, attached to the Office of the Auditor General. We also introduced the strongest environmental assessment legislation in the world.

He personally spearheaded toxic substances legislation, which prompted every factory in the country to modify emissions or face regulatory consequences.

Lincoln also helped to establish the Pest Management Regulatory Agency under the authority of Health Canada.

That involved battling Agriculture Canada, as it did not want to give up authority on fertilizer approval.

Lincoln worked closely with former minister and House Environment Committee chair Charles Caccia and myself to beef up the regulatory side.

Several of those regulations are now being reviewed in the name of speed.

The fight against greenhouse gases must minimize pesticide use. Up to five per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from fertilizers.

Carney got elected with broad support from the environmental community. He had a stellar reputation as an environmental leader in the business community, as founding member of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.

But since Carney’s time in government has been focused on getting results, the green shine is beginning to dull.

Last week was a wonderful chance to reminisce about Lincoln’s influence on public policy.

He is widely respected in Quebec as a minister who gave up his post when the Liberal government decided to limit anglophone rights with the introduction of Bill 178.

Lincoln is not afraid to call a spade a spade. At 97 years of age, he is still a regular contributor to the Montreal Gazette on environmental and language issues. Green Party leader Elizabeth May attended the lunch in his honour, and lauded his environmental contribution.

The current House Speaker started on Parliament Hill as Lincoln’s assistant, and they have stayed in close touch ever since.

Lincoln can be a port in a storm, providing valuable advice. He understands that saving the planet is not just about protecting natural spaces.

It involves thoughtful, rigorous enforcement of regulations designed to protect Canadians and reduce our production of greenhouse gases.

Fast-tracking projects has definitely been the priority.

But weakening regulations, ranging from pesticide approvals to project environmental assessments, risks tarnishing his well-earned reputation as an environmental advocate.

Net zero cannot be achieved solely by wilderness protection. It also involves regulating predatory human pollution.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

After seven years in government, Steven Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution. He is right. Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 1, 2026.

OTTAWA—Steven Guilbeault’s departure from politics is the best of a bad scenario for the Liberals.

Had he decided to leave the caucus and join another party, Guilbeault’s presence would be a continuing reminder of the government’s backpedalling on climate change initiatives introduced during his time as minister. As an opposition spokesperson for the environment, he would certainly have had a platform for his passion, the global fight against climate change.

Had he decided to sit as an Independent, Guilbeault would have been a favoured spokesperson for any comment on government environmental changes. As such, he would no doubt have been a very visible thorne in the government’s side.

An exit will likely put him back in the non-governmental environmental arena. Dozens of environmental activists weighed in with statements of support for Guilbeault, some of whom will likely offer him post-political work.

But in reality, standing on the outside looking in, he will not be as visible or effective as he would have been by remaining in Parliament and simply leaving the Liberals.

Guilbeault was originally recruited as an environmental star and founder of environmental movement ‘Equiterre’ and former Greenpeace activist.

He spent only seven years in government, four of those as environment minister which was his true passion.

Even when he was replaced at Environment minister and minister of Canadian identity and culture, Guilbeault was often more engaged in environmental than cultural issues.

His life’s work has largely been devoted to the fight against global warming with relatively brief political involvement.

Guilbeault was also faced with his own diminishing influence when Prime Minister Mark Carney dismantled some of the elements of his work, including the carbon pricing abolition that was the new government’s first bill in office.

Guilbeault joins another former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who left politics to carry on her crusade for global environmental changes. McKenna departed after only six years, with the intention of making change externally. She has founded an advisory firm on climate solutions and works with the United Nations, including chairing the UN High Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emission of Non-State Entities in 2022.

Guilbeault may be moving in the same direction. He has certainly garnered the respect of environmentalists and even some opposition leaders.

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet thought so much of Guilbeault’s resignation that he used his lead-off spot in Question Period to laud Guilbeault’s environmental credentials.

Blanchet also knows that the summer vacancy in the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Que., provides an opportunity for the Bloc to gain a seat.

Until the New Democratic Party’s Orange Wave flipped the seat in 2011, the Bloc had held Laurier-Sainte-Marie for 18 years.

In a tight race, a Bloc victory would challenge the slim Liberal majority and create momentum for the separatists. With the separatist movement getting premier attention in Alberta, the issue is on the front burner again.

Blanchet also underscored Guilbeault’s reputation as a strong environmentalist long before he entered politics.

But after seven years, Guilbeault has come to the conclusion that politics is not the place for his environmental contribution.

He is right.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of perfection.

One of the challenges faced by any environment minister is the fact that oil and gas royalties strengthen the Canadian economy and, even as alternatives arrive to displace fossil fuel use in transportation, industry and elsewhere, we still have a current need for consumption of fossil fuels.

If we are consuming—and we are—why should the government turn its back on the potential for clean production?

Electrification of the transportation sector has not developed as rapidly as expected because the infrastructure to support electric cars, buses, and trucks has not been implanted as broadly as required.

Then-prime minister Justin Trudeau would not entertain projects involving liquefied natural gas export to Europe.

Last week, the federal government announced an export agreement with Germany to export one million metric tonnes of LNG from northern British Columbia.

The proposed $10-billion facility is on Nisga’a Nation territory north of Prince Rupert.

The deal would replace LNG that Germany was previously receiving from Russia.

Would we rather see Russia or Canada benefitting from the exploitation of this resource?

To quote project proponent and Nisga’a Lisims government president Eva Clayton, “We’re managing poverty. We now want to manage prosperity.”

Environmentalists will oppose the LNG initiative as well. But at the end of the day, the moderate approach is to diversify energy options, but keep petroleum in play.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on August 14, 2023.

OTTAWA—While forest fires rage around the world, some Canadian leaders continue to deny climate change.

Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault launched regulations last week to build a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, as opponents lined up against him.

Canada’s official opposition leader continues his “Axe the Tax” campaign while premiers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba add their voices to those who want to get rid of carbon pricing.

National pollsters added fuel to the debate with findings that the majority of Canadians do not think the carbon pricing has actually positively influenced the environment.

A poll published last week by Nanos research said two-thirds of Canadians say it is a poor time to increase the cost of carbon, and a majority who said they believe the carbon price increase is ineffective at tackling climate change.

That result was not surprising. When is there ever a good time for a tax increase in most peoples’ minds?

To be fair, ordinary Canadians are not involved in the minute details of what needs to be done to tackle climate change.

But the notion that an increase in the cost of carbon will not affect carbon use is simply not logical, whatever the polling says.

It was the increase in the cost of gas during the climate crisis in the last century that encouraged the introduction of smaller vehicles and increased focus on reducing emissions.

Emissions are reduced when less carbon is burned. Less carbon is burned when vehicles are lighter, smaller and more fuel efficient.

The rise in the purchase of hybrid vehicles and electric cars is directly linked to the increasing cost of fuel.

One only has to travel to Europe or Asia to see how the high price of gasoline has encouraged people to move into smaller cars, and multiple means of lower-emitting forms of transportation.

A poll about taxation or carbon pricing does not delve deeply enough into the real problem.

The question should be comparative. Are you willing to pay more in energy costs to reduce fires and floods? That is the real cost-benefit analysis that must be done by governments, companies, and consumers.

According to Driving, most recent 2021 statistics show that one in four vehicles purchased in Canada is a pickup truck. The highest number of pickup truck users are in Alberta with the highest per capita usage of trucks in Saskatchewan.

Ontario’s population is more than three times greater than that of Alberta, but consumers in Canada’s most populous province don’t buy as many trucks. Ontario’s rural footprint is also much larger than Alberta’s.

The more it costs to fill up those vehicles, the more consumers will make decisions to move to smaller and more energy-efficient vehicles.

Carbon pricing will affect purchasing practices, but changes won’t show up immediately.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston was on the news last week attacking the federal carbon pricing program.

But he is also lined up looking for financial help in the wake of disastrous loss of life and property caused by fires and floods resulting from global warming in his province.

The federal government pays 90 per cent of the cost of disaster relief.

This year will likely be the most expensive for disaster relief payouts in history based on the number of forest fires and floods across the country.

Houston did not have a plan to tackle climate change. He did refer to the potential of ocean wind power, and blamed the lack of wind investment on the federal government.

Houston kept repeating that he believed in solutions to climate change, but had nothing specific to offer except opposition to increase the price of carbon.

Nobody likes to pay more for anything.

But if we are serious about tackling the reality of climate change, something has to give.

Not all carbon pricing opponents are in denial. Houston kept repeating that he realized there is a problem. But he seemed ill-equipped or unprepared to offer alternatives.

The only way to move consumers toward energy efficiencies is to increase the cost of pollution caused by burning carbon.

When the world was facing a growing hole in the ozone layer, the solution was a replacement to the chemical in use as a coolant in refrigerators and air conditioners.

The new coolant was vastly more expensive. Not surprisingly, wastage dropped dramatically solving the ozone layer problem.

When things cost more, people conserve. When energy costs more, they cut back on consumption.

When transportation costs more, people’s driving habits change.

Pricing pollution is key.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Alberta believes the best way to tackle climate change is to appoint a minister who knows nothing about it. How else to explain the chorus of criticism levelled at the prime minister for appointing Steven Guilbeault to the post?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 1, 2021.

OTTAWA—Alberta believes the best way to tackle climate change is to appoint a minister who knows nothing about it.

How else to explain the chorus of criticism levelled at the prime minister for appointing Steven Guilbeault to the post?

By all accounts, the minister knows his stuff.

Prior to joining the Liberal government in 2019, Guilbeault founded Quebec environmental organization Equiterre in the aftermath of the 1993 Rio Earth Summit.

Rio was meant to be a political and populist call to arms, encouraging governments and citizens to begin the enormous work of saving the planet from self-imposed destruction.

Guilbeault, along with five other Quebecers, took the call to heart and founded an organization rebranded as Equiterre three years after receiving status as a not-for profit organization dedicated to sustainable and socially equitable living.

Guilbeault remained as a director after joining Greenpeace Canada in 1997. A quick study, he became Greenpeace’s Quebec bureau chief in 2000 and three years later organized their international climate campaign.

When all is said and done, Guilbeault has devoted most of his adult life to tackling climate change so it is certainly disingenuous for both Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and NDP Leader Rachel Notley to claim he is unsuited for the job, with the premier accusing him of a “radical agenda that would lead to mass unemployment.”

The electorate certainly gave the Liberals a mandate for radical action, with more than two-thirds voting for parties which promised major action on climate change.

Trudeau reinforced his intention to move aggressively on the climate file with Guilbeault’s appointment, and that of Jonathan Wilkinson to the energy portfolio. By naming Wilkinson as natural resources minister, Trudeau is creating a powerful duo to lead the way on Canada’s commitment to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

It is not going to be an easy task. If anything, the one risk Guilbeault faces is trying to do too much too soon with the possibility of losing cabinet support.

Guilbeault came into politics because of his commitment to environmental change, but governments never move as quickly as activists would like them to.

In the end, Guilbeault will have to swallow some of his ambition if he is to move on the agenda.

The fact that he has a committed environmentalist in the Natural Resources portfolio will be a huge asset. Historically, these energy and environment priorities have always clashed in the federal government.

But with the support of the prime minister as well, the trio will be able to chart the legacy piece that Trudeau is looking for.

The focus for Wilkinson will be on moving his department toward cleaner and more sustainable energies. That will be no small task, as NRCan has always seen itself as an oil and gas supporter.

I can speak from personal experience that the biggest block to our climate change commitments in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol did not come from other governments. They came from other ministries, with the natural resources minister lining up with the former finance minister to block any calls for a simple single digit reduction in greenhouse gases.

That was more than 25 years ago, and the political climate has changed dramatically.

With the exception of a few recalcitrant premiers, most Canadians are itching for real change to meet our climate change obligations.

So, Justin Trudeau can safely tell the world at COP 26 in Glasgow that Canada actually has a domestic plan to meet our reduction targets.

And with two committed ministers in the right portfolios, the chances of achieving those targets are possible.

Already scientists from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are calling on governments to do more.

A commitment to keep the hike in world temperature to l.5 degrees is only a starting point, and there will be pressure to do more.

However, it is still unclear whether China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia will even attend the conference. All three, and Australia, have refused thus far to increase their commitments to accelerate fossil fuel reduction targets.

Another anti-climate politician, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, continues to aggressively log the country’s rainforest, even though it is acting as a natural carbon sink, swallowing up global carbon dioxide emissions.

Even if Canada does its part, the chance for the world to come to grips with climate change really depends on many other major emitters.

Negotiators in Glasgow have two weeks to conclude a renewed set of global targets.

With Guilbeault and Wilkinson, the planet’s chances look brighter.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

There are leading Liberals who can speak on issues like health, childcare, and the environment. Justin Trudeau’s personal unpopularity has become an anchor for the party.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 2, 2021.

If Justin Trudeau wants to get re-elected, he needs to get out of the way.

That may sound counterintuitive, but the Liberal leader is actually dragging his party down.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole needs to get as much airtime as he can muster, because people do not know him. The election period is a time to introduce him to the general public. Jagmeet Singh is already known to the public, but since no one expects him to form government, he is not a political target, so his smiling face keeps people relaxed and listening.

In Trudeau’s case, he is known, and that comes with its own challenges. Those who like him are going to cut him some slack, but that group is getting smaller.

Men have never really been the most avid supporters of the prime minister. His feminism and obvious support for women and minorities rubs some the wrong way.

Back in 2012, Trudeau was able to prove his pugilistic nature by taking on a senator in a boxing challenge, where he surprised everyone by delivering the knockout punch. The next year he won the race to lead the Liberal Party, and in 2015, the federal election.

In 2021, most people have an opinion about Trudeau, and some of it is not all that positive.

A friend of mine confessed recently that she was going to abandon the Liberals for the first time in her voting life. Her explanation? She has taken a visceral dislike to Trudeau, and is sick to death of hearing him apologize for things that happened in the past.

She likes the Liberal platform, but the person fronting it simply turns her off. She is an older woman, exactly the kind of voter that Trudeau needs to attract if he is going to swing support back to the Liberals in the home stretch of the campaign.

To turn those voters around, Trudeau needs to keep his face off the air, and focus on the team and the programs that Liberals are offering to Canadians.

Women tend to be more supportive of environmental and health investments than their male counterparts. So, the Liberal platform contrasts nicely with that of O’Toole, who strangely dropped the requirement for green investments in his infrastructure announcement last week.

O’Toole is backpedaling on carbon targets, aligning his commitment to the puny promises of Stephen Harper. He is also vowing to reverse court-ordered pipeline cancellations.

His position on universality of health access is also under fire because O’Toole continually says he also supports choice for Canadians. Choice is usually code for allowing wealthy Canadians to choose a shorter line by paying extra.

There is plenty of fodder for Liberals to counter Tory program plans, but the attack should not be carried out by the leader. There are respected spokespersons on multiple files.

The environment is a specialty of Quebecer Steven Guilbeault and current environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson. Child and health care issues could both be addressed by multiple women in the cabinet, including finance minister and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland.

On childcare, the Liberals are also on the right side of the issue as far as most Canadian women are concerned. It has been widely reported that the brunt of the childcare burden created by home schooling during the pandemic has fallen on women. They are the ones who understand that a proper, licensed childcare system overseen by government is worth a lot more to them than the cash-in-hand contribution being promised by the Conservatives.

An extra cheque every month means little compared to the palpable relief of having your child in a well-managed care facility when you are not able to be with them. In childcare, health and the environment, the Liberals have a great story to tell.

By promoting the Liberal platform via the use of his team, Trudeau can remind Canadians that his party is best positioned to carry the country through these trying times. With the spotlight on himself, Trudeau runs the risk of reinforcing the negative views of people like my friend. His sunny personality handed the Liberals a majority in 2015, but two terms in government can take a toll on any leader.

Most people don’t reward parties for the good things they have done in the past. They vote for the party they want in the future. And the reality is that opposition parties do not defeat governments. Governments defeat themselves.

After six years, the number of enemies is on the rise. The leader becomes the lightning rod for that criticism. But Liberal ideas could carry the day.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.