More to Guilbeault than radicalism

Since former federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault announced he was resigning as an MP, the reactions from all sides have been predictable.

Good riddance to his “rigid and dogmatic approach” that threatened national unity, some say, or perhaps his ouster represents a “people last” move “toward a literally scorched Earth.” Other commentators shrugged: it’s a “political divorce,” because “circumstances had changed.”

A common sentiment seems to be that although the “radical” environmentalist had his way for a while, as Tom Brodbeck argued in these pages, Guilbeault’s quest for “ideological purity” and inability to work within the system meant that he never had a chance. He couldn’t “compromise.”

All of the above narratives ignore what Guilbeault achieved working in government: actual steps down the road toward realistic sustainable development, built on the hard-fought idea of a national bargain and degrees of conciliation.

Guilbeault started compromising the moment he agreed to run for the Liberals despite the government’s surprise purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Remember, most environmentalists and climate scientists see the current world as deep into an existential emergency. The radical proposition was and is to immediately pull the plug on all fossil fuel extraction to halt greenhouse gas emissions while dealing with the massive energy consequences for society.

It’s retraction. It’s criminalizing the industry. That’s what Canadians could have expected if Guilbeault was simply going to be a conduit for activist goals, yet that’s not at all what we got.

In three and a half years as environment minister, he did undertake significant policy measures that were based on decades of Liberal and Conservative government commitments to international treaties and targets. He implemented an emissions reduction plan, trying to slow down the growth of carbon dioxide, methane and other pollution. He strengthened the Environmental Protection Act to better manage or limit toxic waste and harmful chemicals and tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to limit single-use plastics.

Key actions included Clean Electricity Regulations (that Carney has since exempted Alberta from) to prevent excessive emissions, yet provide flexibility to ensure reliable and affordable electricity. (Not exactly rigid ideology — independent of what you think about greenhouse gases and climate change, air pollution kills more than 15,000 Canadians each year.)

The policy agenda wasn’t always a love-in with Guilbeault’s former colleagues. Groups like the Environmental Law Association, Canadian Climate Institute and others were often very critical that these initiatives didn’t go far enough to address the issues.

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government repeatedly tried to appease Alberta and the industry, most dramatically by spending more than $34 billion on Trans Mountain from 2018-24, getting it built and tripling capacity that has yet to be maximized. Guilbeault also approved offshore oil projects, a suspension of the carbon tax on heating oil and more in the name of political appeasement.

Midway through his tenure, in 2023, Environment and Climate Change Canada data and other model projections showed that for the first time, emissions were on track to decrease (for reasons other than economic crises) by 2026 if everyone stuck to the initial plan.

Yet they tried another olive branch, introducing a cap-and-trade system that would let producers increase emissions if they paid for offsets or to push obligations down the line. These systems have been consistently criticized by scientists.

Granted, a system on top of a system on top of a regulation does seem ridiculous for industry, but the federal government again compensated with $5.7 billion worth of tax credits for carbon capture, utilization and storage projects, agreeing to fund a modest option that in 2023 only sequestered one million tonnes of CO2 out of 154 million generated by production alone in Alberta.

Was the Trudeau government trying to kill the industry? It’s hard to see how.

This attempted middle way had a lot of complex nuances, but things looked stable. It certainly didn’t stop extraction. Alberta crude oil production increased by 3.5 per cent in 2024, a nine-year high. U.S. imports of Canadian crude doubled between 2009-2024. It didn’t tank the profits of oil companies or lead to massive job losses. Alberta sector employment had recovered to well above pre-pandemic levels.

Rejecting moderation, some provincial politicians and power brokers doubled down, escalating denials and attacks no matter what was being proposed or implemented. This constant victimization perspective seemed to help inflame Alberta, already spiritual home to the vitriolic “F-ck Trudeau” slogans and other hostile views of federal elites.

Oil sands companies’ relentless lobbying for a more laissez-faire approach was even laid out in open letters last year. They found a willing audience and proponent in the new prime minister, despite continuity on climate action pledged in the Liberal election platform. Even a lot of Conservatives had called for the party to adopt more sustainable development positions to increase their electability.

The era of striking hard compromises seems to be over. It’s impossible to see improvements to affordability or “energy security” if the new (old) imperative is to subsidize the industry to simply send even more Canadian oil and gas straight out of the country. There’s no realistic prospect of meeting environmental goals if we leave it up to the industry alone. Even Carney has already learned that lesson firsthand at the United Nations.

Was Guilbeault’s tightrope approach going to work? We’ll never know.

Joel Trenaman writes from Winnipeg