Keep climate a national priority — donate today
Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s plan to address climate change is something of a Rorschach test, with the platform laying out a vision that can be interpreted in contradictory ways.
The platform includes commitments to advance major “nation-building” projects like high speed rail, an east-west power grid, producing hydrogen in Edmonton and prioritizing clean and Canadian procurement for these projects. Liberals are also pitching investments in EV charging networks, issuing “transition bonds” to attract more finance to the energy transition, prefabricated and modular housing to curb construction emissions and strengthening the industrial carbon price.
But the platform also leaves lots of room for interpretation about the role of fossil fuels in the Canadian economy.
Even though much of the platform describes modernizing the Canadian economy and reducing emissions, there is reason to be concerned that oil and gas could feature heavily in a Carney government because of his commitment to Canada becoming an energy superpower for both clean and conventional energy, says Keith Stewart, senior strategist with Greenpeace Canada.
A commitment to cap oil and gas emissions is notably absent from the platform — despite being a signature climate policy from the Trudeau era that has slowly worked through government bureaucracy for four years and is still not yet finalized.
“We've heard Carney waffle away from it and then waffle back towards it, and what I am expecting is some kind of emissions cap but with more flexibility mechanisms, which would basically weaken the cap,” Stewart said. “But the fact that it's not in the platform is concerning.”
Stewart suspects its omission may be a strategy to avoid giving the Conservatives ammunition; the party has accused Carney of being “sneaky” in eliminating the consumer carbon tax while leaving plans in place to cap emissions and maintain the industrial pricing system.
“Is that them trying to not give Conservatives anything to latch onto as they just want to cruise to victory and then they'll do what they're going to do? Because they also don't say they're not going to do it.”
Asked to clarify whether the Liberal Party is still committed to the policy, a spokesperson for Carney pointed to comments the leader made in early April — in which the leader did not confirm he will proceed with the cap.
“My government is focused on results, and the results of the current consultation on the emissions cap will reflect the importance of efficiently and fairly achieving these objectives,” Carney said on April 9. “My government will work closely with our oil and gas industry to reduce their emissions over time, so that Canadian conventional energy will supply the world for decades to come.”
The spokesperson said Carney is still committed to the cap, but it was left out of the platform because it was a promise made by the previous government. However, a number of policies announced under Justin Trudeau are included in Carney’s platform, such as continuing investment tax credits for clean electricity, clean hydrogen, electric vehicle supply chains and carbon capture, utilization and storage, as well a commitment to finalizing sustainable investment guidelines that had previously been included in Chrystia Freeland’s mandate letter as finance minister.
Missed opportunities
Laura Tozer, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto specializing in climate politics, energy transition and decarbonization, told Canada’s National Observer she doesn’t want to see backsliding on emission-reduction policies and so it would’ve been good to see a commitment to strengthening the emissions cap in the platform.
“But I also don't want to put too much pressure on one thing as the thing that's going to deliver the wind-down of the fossil fuel industry,” she said. By putting too much emphasis on a single policy, it can distract from the suite of measures that are required to transition the country’s economy in a climate safe manner.
Tozer said the Liberal platform contains many good things for climate, specifically referring to electric vehicle support, power grid modernization, investments in rural transit and phasing out fossil fuel use from federal buildings. The fact that climate policies were not siloed in a climate section of the platform, but rather infused across policy areas, she says, indicates Carney’s Liberals see climate concerns as something to integrate across government efforts. But there was an opportunity to put forward a more credible plan too.
“The Liberal platform in some ways shows some missed opportunities to advance this vision of how climate action can bring economic development and affordability for Canadians because it … is mired in propping up dying fossil fuel industries,” she said.
For Tozer, Carney’s pitch to make Canada an energy superpower in both clean and fossil fuels is a major concern because climate science is clear that to avoid catastrophic warming a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry is required.
For that reason, the big missed opportunity for Carney was to redefine what being an “energy superpower” means in 2025, Tozer said.
“What an energy superpower should mean for Canada in this day and age is support for renewable energy expansion, remaking our communities in ways that are sustainable and a managed decline of the fossil fuel industries that are introducing all of this risk into our economy,” she said.
The risk to the Canadian economy by staying in the oil and gas business is severe because as demand for oil and gas drops as forecasted, the very expensive infrastructure will become stranded, meaning investors won’t recoup costs. That risk is especially acute for Canadian financial institutions.
At a Senate banking committee meeting in May, Brussels-based Finance Watch chief economist Thierry Philipponnat compared the fossil fuel risk to the 2008 housing crisis, calling it imperative that Canada start seriously tackling fossil fuel risks to the financial sector.
“If we don’t, it’s certain that, in human terms, we’ll have a new financial crisis on top of the climate crisis,” he said. “Exposure to fossil fuels is equivalent to the amount of subprime mortgages that triggered the crisis 12 or 14 years ago.”
Previously, Carney has said he does not support legislation like the Climate Aligned Finance Act that would require federally regulated financial institutions, such as banks and pension funds, to align their portfolios with Canada’s emission reduction targets. Carney told a Senate committee last year he disagrees with the bill because it “dictates” how banks should adjust their practices with “punitive” rules.
Nation-building projects
Stewart called the platform a document designed to be open to interpretation, particularly when it comes to building major national projects without detailing what those are.
All major parties are leaning into nation-building projects as a way to strengthen the Canadian economy in the face of economic aggression from US President Donald Trump. Carney’s top rival, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, outlined in early April 10 projects he would rapidly approve, including LNG Canada Phase 2, Suncor’s proposed bitumen mine expansion and an all-season road to access critical minerals in northern Ontario’s Ring of Fire. (LNG Canada Phase 2 is waiting on a decision from its owner Shell, not the federal government, to proceed.)
Carney hasn’t outlined which projects he is focused on, Stewart said.
“So it's a question of have they not decided yet?” he said. “Or is it they're just not telling us so that they can allow everyone to see what they want to see?”
At last week’s debate, Carney endorsed the Pathways Alliance’s carbon capture megaproject as something his government would advance if elected.
“One of the big projects we need to move forward with is carbon capture and storage — the Pathways project — so that we have oil and gas that is competitive not just today, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now,” he said. “As the world uses less, we want to have more market share.”
To achieve that, the Liberal platform proposes extending tax credits for carbon capture investments, using “carbon contracts for difference” to guarantee a price on carbon to derisk emission reduction investments and for Canada to be “a world leader in responsible energy production” by using carbon capture, utilization and storage technology.
With less than a week until voters head to the polls and the leaders’ debates in the rearview mirror, platforms are one of the last opportunities federal parties have to earn support from the public.
An Angus Reid poll published Monday found little is budging voters. Carney’s Liberals maintain about the same lead over Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives they enjoyed at the start of the campaign — at 44 per cent to 39 per cent.
Nationally, support for the NDP, Bloc and Greens have similarly held steady.
Comments
Thank you for the well researched and balanced (as much as it can be) article! Unfortunately, it appears that the Liberals will continue to talk out of both sides of their mouth and for those of us who deeply care about Earth's future, this is simply unacceptable. It certainly appears as though "Carbon Capture" Carney will invest more Canadian tax-funded dollars into supporting the oil & gas industry, than it will in a just green transition (and a livable future). Before I ever vote Liberal again, they must definitively PICK A SIDE. I'm tired of choosing to drink half a cup of cyanide (Liberals) instead of drinking a full cup (Conservatives) - The RESULTS, as Carney loves to talk about, are the same!
I would caution your exuberance to encourage vote splitting, might make me cancel my sub. I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel that way. Take yourselves on a trip through history to understand my point, we could not be closer to the events of the 1930s, if we were transported back in time.. I caution you and your editorial team to use your good sense in the future. Seriously WTF? Singh used a crisis to make a power grab during a threat to our sovereignty, CBC seems to be hell bent on sinking Carney and we have few media options we can count on.. Look around, if you sink Carney by encouraging vote splitting, where does leave us? I am vegan, I walk everywhere I go, I have a minisplit for heat..... could not be more of an environmentalist, and I highly disapprove of any attacks on Carney.
Constructive analysis is not an "attack." However, your concern over the rise of fascism is spot on.
When the political platforms of parties that actually have a chance to win are examined, plus the platforms of parties that could be asked to back a minority government, Carney's is superior even with its imperfections.
Personally, I want to see ALL variations of party platforms and read the analyses and opinions to evaluatecthem for myself. To pull or eliminate points of criticism by any media is just not a part of a democracy.
"[Carney's] commitment to Canada becoming an energy superpower for both clean and conventional energy"
Climate plans predicated on fossil fuel expansion are plans to fail.
The Liberals' "both … and" energy vision spells climate disaster.
Increasing both "clean" and conventional energy does not solve our climate problem.
No matter how much renewable capacity we add, as long as fossil fuel production and consumption increase, atmospheric CO2 increases faster and faster.
If fossil fuel production and consumption merely hold steady, atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase.
Even as fossil fuel production and consumption decline, atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase.
As long as we emit more CO2 than carbon sinks can absorb, atmospheric CO2 increases.
As long as atmospheric CO2 increases, climate change will accelerate. Climate impacts will mount.
The hard reality petro-progressive governments and politicians refuse to admit.
Carney: “My government will work closely with our oil and gas industry to reduce their emissions over time, so that Canadian conventional energy will supply the world for decades to come.”
Petro-progressives like Trudeau/Carney, Notley/Nenshi, and Horgan/Eby are banking on climate failure. The oil industry is betting that the world will fail to take real action on climate change. The only scenario in which oilsands expansion makes sense.
In the petro-progressive view, the path to renewable energy and a sustainable future runs through a massive spike in fossil-fuel combustion and emissions. Complete disconnect from the science.
Laura Tozer, UofT: “The Liberal platform in some ways shows some missed opportunities to advance this vision of how climate action can bring economic development and affordability for Canadians because it … is MIRED IN PROPPING UP DYING FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRIES."
The neoliberal "climate" plan in a nutshell.
Canada's O&G industry is posting record profits on record production. Not exactly "dying".
"At last week’s debate, Carney endorsed the Pathways Alliance’s carbon capture megaproject as something his government would advance if elected."
Carney's support for CCS is unconscionable. Clearly, he has not done his homework.
Tens of billions of public dollars wasted on projects that merely provide political cover for fossil-fuel expansion. Funds far better spent on renewables, energy-efficient housing, and public transit.
Make no mistake. We have two O&G parties in Ottawa, not one. A vote for the Liberals or the Conservatives is a vote for climate disaster.
By all means, vote Liberal to keep the Conservatives out of power. When your grandchildren ask you why you voted for climate disaster, you can tell them that you fell for the Liberals' endless duplicity on climate election after election.
I'm with the prof from the U of T. It takes a plethora of programs and policies to fight climate change. In addition, this is a political campaign where platforms are flexible. It's obvious Carney's message is appealing to moderate conservatives who are concerned more about Trump than climate.
There are a lot of good things in Carney's platform. One example, energy efficient modular housing is a huge project that will have a direct impact on decreasing per structure emissions over their operating life, likely 100 years. Buildings are currently huge emitters. Ditto E-W electricity grids, high speed rail (competes directly with short haul flight, highways and car dependency) and EVs that kiss gas stations and up to ~40% of our total domestic fossil fuel consumption (Alberta bitumen) goodbye.
I am not aware of any comment or policy Carney has put out that specifically says his government will build pipelines on their own. His take all along is catalyzing private sector investment. And so far no private consortium has stepped forward to build CCS or pipes. I really don't see Carney pulling a Trudeau-Freeland to build O&G infrastructure using only taxpayer's money. I believe he will put the onus on private sector to generate cost-benefit analyses, feasibility studies and realistic business plans for majority private investment before any public funds enter the picture. That may happen in some projects, but there is no evidence that applies across the board to every project that comes along. CCS is dependent on certain geological characteristics to be viable over time.
Not a perfect scenario, but then again there is no such thing as 100% perfection.
Quibbles about whether a Carney government will pay for new pipelines in toto are besides the point. Taxpayers will not pick up the whole bill for the Pathways Alliance CCS project either. Just 75% of it.
Tens of billions of public dollars are already on the table for CCS. Tens of billions of dollars more for new pipelines is disastrous climate policy — and irresponsible public policy. Whether Carney forces taxpayers to pick up the entire bill or not is not the main issue.
Every dollar spent propping up the überwealthy O&G industry is a dollar not spent on the energy transition, green housing, public transit, etc.
Wrong direction.
"Quebec should use oil from Alberta, not the U.S., Carney says" (Montreal Gazette, April 07, 2025)
"Mark Carney says he wants Quebecers to use oil from Alberta rather than the United States — but a new pipeline would require Quebec’s blessing.
"'There is a big advantage to Canada to push that out, use our own oil, use the resources from that for other things, including protecting our environments (and) our social programs.'
"The Liberal leader, a former United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, said there is no contradiction between his positions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building pipelines."
"Carney lays out plan to help economy along amid Trump-induced market chaos" (CBC, Apr 07, 2025)
"Over the medium term, Carney said a re-elected Liberal government would 'accelerate major investments' to spur economic growth, adding Canada should build out natural resources projects to ween itself off U.S. and other foreign energy supplies.
"He said getting Western Canadian oil to eastern markets will make the country collectively richer, and refineries won't have to import 500,000 barrels of oil a day from abroad."
"Conservatives Vow to End Oil Tanker Moratorium" (The Tyee, 8-Apr-25)
"[Conservative federal election candidate Ellis Ross] raised the issue of pipelines only once, reiterating his opposition to Mark Carney’s comments that a Liberal government would use emergency powers to push through energy projects.
"When Carney was asked to clarify his comments, a Liberal party spokesperson told The Tyee that while the Liberal leader believes there is a need to accelerate the building of major projects, 'there is no project that is going to be built without Indigenous consultation and consent, and same thing with environmental assessment.'
"Varcoe: Canadian governments would need 'financial skin in the game' to get new pipelines built" (Calgary Herald, Feb 08, 2025)
"Yet, no private-sector firms are proposing a greenfield east-west oil pipeline, or a new oil export line to the Pacific Coast, given the risks involved.
"If Canadians want to diversify export markets or ensure energy independence, it just might take government involvement — in one form or another — to make it happen, say industry experts.
"'To get things done quickly, I think the government would need to have financial skin in the game,' said Gitane De Silva, former CEO of the Canada Energy Regulator and the principal of GDStrategic.
"'Any additional future pipeline projects in the country are likely going to need to be Crown projects, at least through the scoping and construction phases,' added energy economist Rory Johnston, founder of the Commodity Context newsletter."
"Feds supported fossil fuel sector to the tune of nearly $30 billion last year" (National Observer, April 3 2025)
"Federal and provincial politicians have been talking about reviving the Energy East Pipeline, and Liberal Leader Mark Carney recently stated he is committed to building pipelines across the country.
"All these possible projects would only happen with huge amounts of government support, Julia Levin [, associate director of national climate for Environmental Defence and author of the report] said.
"The federal government has supported the oil and gas sector to the tune of nearly $75 billion over the past five years, Environmental Defence finds.
"This is an 'inexcusable' amount of money handed to Canada’s biggest polluters, Levin said."
Sure sounds like another taxpayer-funded pipeline in the offing.
A new pipeline is just the start. Retooling Eastern Canada refineries for Alberta's heavy oil will cost billions. Who will pay?
"… the chairman of Strathcona Resources said that moving crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick is not an easy task.
"'There would have to be, not only pipelines built to the east, but there would have to be refining capacity configured to be able to receive heavy crudes,' said Adam Waterous."
"Two cross-country pipelines could've diverted $38.4 billion from the U.S., new study finds" (National Post, Mar 20, 2025)
None of the politicians are going to save us. We'll need to save ourselves.