Prime Minister Mark Carney announced his new cabinet on Tuesday with a speech at Rideau Hall outlining his priorities — and like the speech, which did not mention climate change, the cabinet itself signals a potential shift in a new direction.
Carney's cabinet signals a “potential downgrading” of climate change and environment, says Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental governance at York University.
“There's a lot of unknowns here in terms of specifics, but it certainly seems that climate is less central to the government's agenda than it was,” Winfield told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview.
Carney appointed longtime business executive Tim Hodgson to serve as energy and natural resources minister and Toronto—Danforth MP Julie Dabrusin to serve as minister of environment and climate change. Dabrusin steps into the post held under Trudeau by Steven Guilbeault, who drew the ire of the energy industry and its political allies. Immediately following Dabrusin’s appointment, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith attacked her, too.
Smith promptly took to social media after the swearing-in ceremony on May 13 to call Dabrusin “another anti-oil and gas Environment Minister.”
The new natural resources minister, Hodgson, “comes from a pretty conventional energy background,” Winfield said, noting his recent experience as chairperson at Hydro One and former position on the board of fossil fuel company MEG Energy. There seems to be a shift “compared to the kind of ecological, modernist, environment-economy integration language you saw from the previous government,” he said.
“We're not talking about energy transitions anymore, it would seem.”
Hodgson appointment consistent with Carney’s priorities
Hodgson is a former Goldman Sachs banker and worked alongside Carney at the Bank of Canada.
“This is someone that Carney, presumably, is confident he can work with and that they're on the same page because they have worked together previously,” Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, told Canada’s National Observer.
Hodgson’s experience at Hydro One could be an asset at a time when the federal government is looking at building out the electricity grid, Harrison said. His banking and business experience also aligns with Carney’s, signalling that the government would make strategic investments to try to leverage private sector investment, she said.
Hodgson’s predecessor, Jonathan Wilkinson, “was clearly more, at least notionally and rhetorically, more focused on energy transitions and climate and it's not clear where Hodgson is going to be coming from on this stuff,” Winfield said. Wilkinson was left out of cabinet after a productive run as energy and natural resources minister.
Wilkinson’s exclusion from cabinet is “a big loss,” Harrison said. He made important contributions as environment minister and natural resources minister and, working with former environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, rebuilt the relationship between those two departments which had been at odds for decades, she said.
Guilbeault retained a spot in cabinet, as minister of Canadian identity and culture, and minister responsible for official languages. Earlier this year, Carney moved Guilbeault from environment and climate change to serve as Quebec Lieutenant.
Harrison is not surprised Guilbeault is being kept away from environment and climate-related files, given the target on his back from the West.
Dabrusin, MP for Toronto—Danforth, sat on the federal standing committee on natural resources for over three years and was parliamentary secretary to both the minister of environment and climate change and minister of energy and natural resources, starting in 2021.
Dabrusin’s appointment “signals a level of continuity,” due to her former roles working with both Wilkinson and Guilbeault, Harrison said. “She would have been part of policy decisions over the last few years and defended those decisions.”
Former Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson was appointed minister of housing and infrastructure. Robertson is also the minister responsible for pacific economic development. When he was mayor between 2008 to 2018, he had a focus on climate change, pursuing a policy of making Vancouver the “greenest city,” and Harrison thinks he’s a good fit for this ministerial role.
“That's going to be a really important portfolio for Canada's climate action because of the emphasis on ‘build, baby build,’” Harrison said. If new housing is built to operate with fossil fuels like gas, those greenhouse gas emissions are locked in for decades to come, so this is a key issue to watch, she said.
Other ministers and secretaries of state
Carney’s 28-person cabinet includes an additional 10 secretaries of state, who will sit in on cabinet meetings related to their files and work on key issues within their ministers’ portfolios.
“It's clear that Carney's trying to blend experience with putting his own stamp on things, both in terms of personalities and portfolios and cabinet structure,” Alex Marland, a professor of Canadian politics at Acadia University, told Canada’s National Observer in a phone interview.
Quebec MP Nathalie Provost is secretary of state for nature. Provost worked for the Quebec ministry of environment and climate change for nine years and is a trained engineer. She is best known for her advocacy on gun control after surviving the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre.
Mélanie Jolie is now minister of industry and minister responsible for economic development in Quebec.
New Brunswick MP Wayne Long, who was vocal about his opposition to the federal carbon price and Trudeau staying on as leader, snagged a role as secretary of state for the Canada Revenue Agency and financial institutions.
Chrystia Freeland — who put one of the final nails in Trudeau’s coffin the day she was supposed to table a key economic update on behalf of the government — remains in cabinet as minister of transport and interprovincial trade.
Environmentalists may not be happy to see Freeland is still in the mix, given her support of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — in the way of billions of dollars of loan guarantees to ensure the megaproject’s completion — and slow progress on sustainable finance guidelines.
“It's probably smart for him to not have her too close to him, because he does want to put distance from the Trudeau era,” Marland said, adding people likely would have been disappointed if Freeland was left out of cabinet.
MP Eleanor Olszewski is minister of emergency management and community resilience, which encompasses climate-related emergencies like wildfires and floods.
The long game
“The real thing in all of this is just trying to figure out where all of this lands over time,” Marland said.
Cabinet appointments are almost treated like a sporting event with all the emphasis placed on the players (ministers), but “it's not going to be that long before, all of a sudden, we're just back to talking about, you know, Carney and the power in the prime minister's office,” Marland said.
Carney has not yet publicly released mandate letters for each of his ministers.
Trudeau’s government was frequently criticized as overly centralized, and cabinet members felt they didn’t have much authority, Harrison said. Before 2015, there were often cabinet ministers for each region, and “all politics would flow through that one individual” before it went to the prime minister’s office, Marland explained.
Despite Trudeau’s statement in 2015 that “government by cabinet is back” following the consolidation of power under Harper, 2024 polling by Abacus Data showed by the end of Trudeau’s tenure as prime minister, few Canadians could identify cabinet ministers – with the exception of former Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.
Carney appears to be trying to change that. Cabinet members are “expected and empowered to show leadership – to bring new ideas, a clear focus, and decisive action to their work,” Carney said in a written statement accompanying the list of new cabinet ministers.
However, without power brokers like the regional ministers utilized in the pre-Trudeau era, “power moves towards the centre and the prime minister’s office,” Marland said.
Natasha Bulowski / Local journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
Not so sure. Might be doing the classic Liberal thing of waiting for a public opinion shift. That'll might come sooner than later as the coming season starts of out-of-control wildfires and floods across the country.
Pre-election:
Adrienne Tanner: "Carney's green dream team" (National Observer, 03-Apr-25)
"If climate is your issue, you’ve got to take a good hard look at the Liberals.
Post-election:
"Carney's cabinet signals potential softening on climate" (National Observer, 14-Apr-25)
"Prime Minister Mark Carney announced his new cabinet on Tuesday with a speech at Rideau Hall outlining his priorities — and like the speech, which did not mention climate change, the cabinet itself signals a potential shift in a new direction.
"Carney's cabinet signals a 'potential downgrading' of climate change and environment, says Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental governance at York University.
"'There's a lot of unknowns here in terms of specifics, but it certainly seems that climate is less central to the government's agenda than it was. …
"'We're not talking about energy transitions anymore, it would seem.'"
Carney has clearly stated his ambition to make Canada "the world's leading energy superpower, in both clean and conventional energy."
A plan to fail on climate.
"Mark Carney's Liberals to make Canada the world's leading energy superpower
"'Canada has a tremendous opportunity to be the world's leading energy superpower, in both clean and conventional energy,' said Mark Carney, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada."
Liberal Party news release (April 9, 2025)
As I wrote on April 3:
How many times will Lucy hold the football for Charlie Brown, only to pull it away at the last second? How many times will Charlie Brown fall for this trick?
After another decade of climate failure by the Liberals, faint hope still lingers on the horizon. Ever out of reach.
A vote for the Liberals is a vote for fossil-fuel expansion and climate failure.
Everyone needs to wait and see what Carney really does around the climate, pending public opinion. Even if there is another pipeline, it doesn't mean softening on climate. Carney needs to keep the focus on the economy moving forward, deal with affordability and break the tariff stranglehold the Orange Sphincter placed on the Canada economy.
A dangerous delusion.
As far as climate change goes, it does not matter how much renewable capacity we build. If government invests in or otherwise enables fossil-fuel expansion at the same time, Canada cannot hope to meet its climate targets.
Rising O&G production and consumption, in Canada and globally, accelerate emissions growth. Even maintaining O&G production and consumption at current levels increases atmospheric CO2. Neither scenario solves our climate problem. They both make it worse.
B.C.'s push for new LNG projects dooms its climate goals:
"BC Admits It Won't Come Close to 2025 and 2030 Climate Goals" (The Tyee, 1 May 2025)
New pipelines buy us oilsands expansion and higher emissions, not a energy transition. Contradictory and fraudulent climate policy.
Can we grow O&G production and still meet our emissions targets? That's like my chocolate cake diet. The more I eat, the faster I lose weight. At least, that's what I tell myself.
A pipe dream.
We cannot reduce our emissions by increasing them. O&G expansion increases emissions.
SFU Prof Mark Jaccard: "National studies by independent researchers (including my university-based group) consistently show that Mr. Trudeau's 2015 Paris promise of a 30% reduction by 2030 is UNACHIEVABLE with oil sands expansion."
"Trudeau's Orwellian logic: We reduce emissions by increasing them" (Globe and Mail, 20-Feb-18)
Transitions start by moving in the direction you wish to travel. Doubling down on fossil fuels takes us in the wrong direction.
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.
Neither the IPCC nor the IEA endorses fossil fuel expansion — the basis of the Liberals', Conservatives', provincial NDPs', and Corporate Canada's anti-climate plan. The Liberals' plan takes us in the wrong direction. Building fossil-fuel infrastructure locks us into a fossil-fuel future.
We don't have decades to expand fossil fuel production.
The IPCC warns that the world must nearly halve GHG emissions by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050 to keep warming below the danger limit of 1.5 C.
IEA's Net-Zero by 2050 report says no new investment in fossil fuels after 2021 to limit global warming to 1.5 C.
No time for fossil-fuel expansion.
Naomi Oreskes (CBC Radio, 2017): "It's such an idiotic argument, it's really hard to give a rational answer to it. If you are building pipelines, you're committing yourself to another 30, 50, 75, 100 years of fossil fuel infrastructure. If we're really serious about decarbonizing our economy, it means we have to stop building fossil fuel infrastructure."
Compromise solutions that try to please everybody may be good politics, but the policy contradiction defies the best available science — and common sense.
Adopted globally, the Liberals' "both … and" energy policy spells climate disaster.
Thanks for your, as always, cogent comments, Geoffrey. Still, I see grounds for nuancing that radical (zero expansion, no new pipelines) stance a bit:
+ Many people may not know that Norway, the poster child for electrification, has also been exploiting its North Sea oil wealth to the hilt. (Unlike Alberta/Canada, they've hoarded the proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund).
+ Line 5 is a long standing irritant. I can see one pipeline being built, one that will avoid sending Western oil east through the States.
+ Just maybe Mark Carney's *Value(s)* will work their way through his government's policy decisions. We should give him some room.
1) I agree about a Line 5 replacement. Building a pipeline north of the Great Lakes to feed SW Ontario (Sarnia) refineries, bypassing the U.S., would not imply a significant expansion in oilsands production.
However, that is not what the federal Liberals, the Alberta Government, the O&G industry, and the Business Council of Canada are talking about. They are talking about export pipelines. Export pipelines do imply a significant expansion in production.
Like Trans Canada's Energy East, an east-west pipeline all the way to the east coast (New Brunswick) would largely be an export pipeline. (Quebec and New Brunswick refineries are not equipped to process large volumes of Alberta's heavy oil. Retooling these refineries to displace crude oil imports would cost billions.)
Likewise, proposals to expand TMX or build a northward arm to Kitimat for export to Asia would imply a significant expansion in production.
2) The fact that Norway exploits its oil reserves does not justify Canada's expansion. Two wrongs don't make a right. Climate crisis, remember? Oilsands expansion ensures Canada will fail to meet its inadequate climate targets.
Climate Action Tracker:
"Norway continues to support an expansion of oil and gas exploration in its already large fossil fuel sector. NORWAY’S EXPORTED FOSSIL FUELS ARE A LARGE SOURCE OF GLOBAL EMISSIONS when their eventual combustion is taken into account. The government is seeking to throw out a case currently before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that charges that approval of new permits to drill for oil and gas would constitute a breach of fundamental human rights. … Norway’s rating does not consider exported emissions from its large oil and gas production sector.
"… Norway is home to the biggest hydrocarbon reserves in Europe, making it the world’s fifth largest exporter of crude oil.
"… Despite Norway’s relatively high carbon tax, its oil and gas sector continues to be a LARGE EMISSIONS SOURCE, making up over a quarter of total emissions in 2020. The vast majority of emissions resulting from this sector are from combustion abroad. While this enormous source of emissions is not counted under Norway’s emissions inventory, it far outweighs total domestic emissions and REPRESENTS A BLIGHT ON NORWAY’S CLIMATE RECORD. The current government has refused to consider a phase-out of this sector, confirming its commitment to allowing an expansion of drilling and exploration in the Barents Sea, though this decision is currently being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights."
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway/
Norway's upstream O&G production emissions intensity and total emissions are far lower than Canada's (Rystad 2018). O&G production from these two nations are at opposite ends of the intensity scale.
Canada's average crude carbon intensity is more than twice the global average. Almost double Iran. Nearly triple Russia. More than triple the U.S. Four times Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Five and a half times Norway and the UAE.
COUNTRY ….. CO2 INTENSITY ….. PRODUCTION ….. CO2 EMISSIONS
…..…..……..….... (kg/boe) ….…..…..…... (MMbpd) ……..….... (Mt)
Norway ….…..…..…... 7 ……..…..…..…....... 4.0 …..…....…....... 10
Canada ….…..…..… 39 ……..…..…..….... 8.2 …..…....…........ 114
Background:
"US tops upstream oil & gas CO2 emitters list – Canada has highest intensity, Norway lowest" (Rystad Energy, May 28, 2020)
"Among the top 10 oil and gas producing countries, CANADA HAD THE HIGHEST CO2 emission intensity per barrel of oil equivalent (boe) produced, while NORWAY HAD THE LOWEST."
"Canada, with an average intensity of 39 kg per boe, has a high share of its production from oil sands, typically emitting three to five times more CO2 per barrel than the global average of 18 kg per boe.
"When it comes to CO2 intensity per produced boe, Norway shows the lowest upstream CO2 footprint among the top 10 producing countries, with approximately 7 kilos (kg) of CO2 per boe produced. Norway introduced a CO2 pricing mechanism in the early 1990s, while also adhering to the EU carbon trading system, which has motivated operators in the country to put extra emphasis on emission-reducing measures and technologies.
"Several major Norwegian offshore fields, such as the giant Johan Sverdrup project, are now partly or fully electrified by power from shore, thus reducing CO2 extraction emissions substantially – even approaching zero in some instances. Furthermore, gas flaring has been banned in the country since the 1970s, with certain exceptions for safety purposes, which has resulted in a very low flaring intensity.
"The UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are challenging Norway for the top position in terms of CO2 intensity, each with emissions at or below 10 kg per boe. Saudi Arabia and the UAE benefit from hosting large field developments with stable production levels and limited flaring, all of which contribute to low emission intensities. Moreover, production in these countries is dominated by light and medium grade crudes, which are less energy-intensive to extract compared to heavier oils.
"At the other end of the scale, Canada and Iraq are both among the world’s highest upstream emitters, albeit for entirely different reasons.
"Canada, with an average intensity of 39 kg per boe, has a high share of its production from oil sands, typically emitting three to five times more CO2 per barrel than the global average of 18 kg per boe. Heavy oil produced by mining or in-situ is more complicated to extract and the process is very energy-intensive. In recent years several major producers have divested their assets in these segments due to the expensive extraction process and the high carbon footprint."
https://web.archive.org/web/20210317211815/https://www.rystadenergy.com…