[Host]: The Carney government axe the tax, getting rid of the consumer carbon price. It also got rid of the electric vehicle mandate and the oil and gas cap. So we have to ask the question Is Ottawa serious about fighting climate change? Joining us from Halifax, Martha Hall Findlay is the director of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary and from Montreal. Caroline Brouillette is the executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. Thank you so much, both of you, for joining us on the line. Really looking forward to this conversation. Carolyn, I'm going to start with you. Memorandum of understanding between Alberta and Ottawa. You have, I believe you have described it as Mark Carney taking a sledgehammer to Canada's climate plan. How so?

[Caroline Brouillette]: Well, I think first and foremost, negotiating with the country's most prominent fossil fuel lobbyists was never going to yield ideal outcomes, both for Canadians and for the planet. The Prime Minister ran on the premise of industrial carbon pricing really being the key tool that he would use to drive emissions reductions in Canada under his leadership. And what we saw through this memorandum of of understanding and the implementation agreement that was published a couple of weeks ago, is that he actually gave a concession to Danielle Smith to postpone by many years the moment at which we would reach the headline price for a $130 per tonne of of carbon. And what that effectively does is not only reduce our chances of meeting our 2030 and 2035 commitments to the Paris Agreement, but also stop our chances of meeting net zero by 2050.

[Martha Hall Findlay]: Well, look, the MoU was with the province of Alberta, not with a lobby. I personally think the MOU is is is historic. I think this is a fantastic development in the relationship between the federal government and Alberta. And frankly, I think all provinces, because it shows a willingness on the part of the federal government to to work with provinces. I you know, I just I find it Canada has set goals for a variety of things in the past. But, you know, when we set those goals, we were part of what felt like a, a global consensus, you know, the Paris accord. But I tell you, you know, it's 2026 and the world has changed so dramatically. And I give kudos to Marc Carney for actually recognising he's, you know, he's had very strong climate views in, in the past and I think very good intentions. But he's also the head of a government at a time where we realised we need to spend billions of dollars on national security, on national defence, on economic diversification. We need to align our policies with security, with economic diversification and economic diversification of all of the sectors that are so important for the Canadian economy. And I will just finish off. So I think I think all of this is fantastic. It's I think that's probably not a surprise, but I will also say, I think Canada, Canada and Canadians, Canadians, I mean, every poll will show you people care about climate, but they care way more right now about affordability, about where our money is going, what we're spending on including things like, you know, this national security, economic diversification, etc. and our prosperity. And so I just think we have an extremely false arrogance in Canada sometimes about what we can accomplish in terms of climate. It's not very much. And when the rest of the world is now focussed on energy security and affordability, I go back to it's a false arrogance to think that Canada can spend billions of dollars and impose regulations at the cost of billions of dollars. That just makes absolutely no sense in 2026.

[Host]: Martha, can you help contextualise that? You said very little in terms of what Canada could do on climate. What do you mean by that?

[Martha Hall Findlay]: So, you know, Canada contributes 1.3% of all of global emissions. I'm not I'm not. Just to be clear, we all want to reduce emissions, but I want to make sure that the context, especially now that the world is facing massively different concerns from an energy security perspective, Canada contributes 1.3% of of global emissions, which is pretty negligible. And if we were to shut down our our production of oil and gas tomorrow, which contributes about 12.5, oil and gas producer contributes about 12.5% of that 1.5%. So 1.3%. So we're not talking, you know, globally, we're insignificant. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing our part. But, you know, in 2020, when we were putting together the whole pathways project to get to, you know, the first step to get to net zero in the oilsands, it was part of a global consensus. There were countries all around the world, and if Canada were one of everyone else, then that little bit could have actually contributed to making a difference if everybody pulled together, that was our attitude then that that's not happening anymore. And so for Canada to continue down this path while the world has changed, it just ignores the priorities facing Canadians right now. And it's not to take away from climate the importance of climate, the importance of emissions reduction. It's all about being pragmatic and realistic as Canadians.

[Host]: Carolyn, a few things for you to respond there, but I saw you nodding your head in disagreement. So help me understand a little bit.

[Caroline Brouillette]: Yeah. I mean, I'm glad that Mrs. Hall Findlay is mentioning the global context, because a big part of of my job and what we do at Climate Action Network Canada is engage with colleagues and jurisdictions across the world, including us, in key climate diplomacy moments. And so the first thing we have to say is that indeed, in 2026, it is a very different world in terms of the economics of the energy transition and how we're seeing, for instance, investments in renewable actually dwarf by twice the investments in oil and gas. And that's not just according to me, it's according to the International Energy Agency. And so when I hear things about the context in 2026, yes, of course, there is one party amidst the over 190 parties to the Paris Agreement that has left that is, the United States under Donald Trump, who is now driving forward an agenda to maintain not only the United States, but the world's dependence on extremely volatile, costly fossil fuels that, by the way, are owned, including in Canada by a majority of American companies. And so we have a choice. Are we going to follow this one country, or are we going to look at where the rest of the world is going? The European Union has started at the beginning of the year to impose a tariff at the border on the basis of the carbon intensity of of the goods they import. China has driven immense growth, including in developing countries, in key sectors of the technologies of the future, which are increasingly electric. We're talking about solar PV, photovoltaic. We're talking about electric vehicles. So in this moment where we have to diversify our economy, we have a choice. Are we going to double down in the economy of the past and economy that is making us less healthy? You know, we're at the beginning of another wildfire season that is once again, going to be devastating on on communities and ecosystems, but it's also making us more economically vulnerable. When I say, you know, we're the that part of my role is, is, is conversing with, with folks from around the world. We hear this argument that our country is doing a smaller share of or is responsible for a smaller share of carbon pollution. Therefore, we shouldn't be so concerned. I hear that from countries around the world. That has been the debate between the United States and China, who are the two most polluting economies. The reality of the climate crisis is that all countries need to work together to face it. And Canada, despite emitting 1.6% of global emissions, is one of the 10th largest bigger polluters in the world. And that's without counting the pollution of the fuels we export. So we have a responsibility. But there's also an opportunity for us in this crucial moment while we are trying to diversify our economy away from President Trump's United States, to actually invest in the technologies of the future that are already starting to accelerate and dominate globally.

[Host]: All right. I want to switch gears a little bit. We just spoke to journalists Jen Gerson earlier about sort of the separatist sentiment in Alberta. And I am wondering, Martha, building a pipeline? Is it just the price to pay in order to keep the province? And in Confederation, as we know, all eyes will be on October 19th. I am curious if that is part and parcel with sort of the conversations that are happening right now.

[Martha Hall Findlay]: I think the timing is purely coincidental and it's and it's really frustrating. I don't advocate for. Pipeline to the West Coast for Alberta. I advocate for it and have done for years because I'm a Canadian and because of the importance both of this sector to our economic prosperity and for our economic diversification. So just to be really clear, I'm not saying that any of this as an Albertan, this is a country wide, massive part of our national GDP. And so, you know, we, we, we have to continue to reinforce the fact that this is a huge import to Canada. I don't disagree that if all countries were pulling together, Canada should do its part, but they're not anymore. And, you know, let's be honest, the investment in renewables in China was not because of any moral view that they should contribute to to climate change is because their major cities were unliveable. And so they needed to electrify their urban transit. And good on them. They've now established technologies that they've done so much better than anybody else in building EVs. But right now, being completely realistic in 2026, the world is focussed on energy security. So for all those other countries, even the Europeans who were extremely tough on, you know, Canada has to do its part. And we have we just Germany just signed a deal with one of our LNG producers, right? We have countries around the world calling us. You talk to anybody in global affairs, talk to anybody. They're calling and saying, we need Canada's energy. We need Canada's oil, and we need Canada's gas. And by the way, electricity. You can't transmit that across oceans. It has to be in the form of LNG. We not only have an obligation to Canadians and Canadians prosperity right now at a time of of significant crisis, but we also have an obligation to our allies and to like minded countries and ask any one of them, which is their priority, that Canada actually deal with the tiny percentage of its commitment to global emissions right now, or actually get some energy infrastructure so that they can have energy security. And I can guarantee you what the answer will be. And so this is a moment, frankly, for Canada to start being realistic about Canada and what Canada can do and where we can contribute the most in the, in the in the global environment that we have right now.

[Host]: Caroline, I am curious about sort of the political price that could potentially, you know, cost Carney a little bit here on, you know, as we know, Steven Guilbeault announced his resignation from Parliament last week over this. And there was a letter signed by 14 Liberal MPs to the Prime Minister about concerns about these rollbacks. And I am curious, is there a price to be paid if Carney goes too far in that direction?

[Caroline Brouillette]: Well. We conducted polling that we released last week to ask just this question to voters in 11 ridings in British Columbia and Quebec. And what we find is that voters, by a margin of 7 to 10, actually really oppose the idea of public funding, taxpayer dollars being invested in a pipeline to the West Coast. They are also less likely to vote or re-elect their MP, especially if it's a Liberal MP. If that MP supports this type of public finance or other fossil fuel subsidies. So there seems to be very much a political cost to this idea that, yet again, a pipeline would appease separatist sentiment in Alberta. And I think I'm old enough to remember a pipeline called the Trans Mountain expansion that ended up costing tens of billions of dollars to Canadians. And we are here now with separatist sentiment and tensions with the federal government that are higher than they were before. So I think we need to be very careful with that idea. I also want to come back to this idea of energy sovereignty, because I agree with Martha that energy security and sovereignty is where many countries in the world are really concerned right now. But what I hear, and I'm just back from from Kenya, is that countries are looking to invest in their domestic capacity to meet their energy needs. So I think we need to really question this idea that exporting fuels will make Canada more economically strong. In a moment where countries are very much looking to meet their needs domestically. And for many countries, including in Southeast Asia, where there are many markets that Canada is is targeting, we're seeing a lot of demand destruction through investment in long term policies that electrify, whether it's cooking, whether it's transportation in a way that reduces demand in the long term for fossil fuels.

[Martha Hall Findlay]: And most of those countries don't have the capacity to do that. And they'll need at the very at the very least, LNG. I mean, the demand is even the International Energy Agency has acknowledged the demand for oil and gas continues to go up. And now the by far the key question is affordability. But can I just go back for a second? How many ridings did you poll? Like we have hundreds of ridings in Canada. I will also say, as a former politician. I really don't subscribe to the concept of anonymity. If 14 MPs wanted to send a message to their leader and their prime minister, they should have actually acknowledged who they were. The second piece is that if it hadn't been for Mark Carney, I would argue that several of them probably wouldn't have a job right now. Right? And Mark Carney got elected and his government got elected very much because Canadians realised we are in a time of significant challenge right now, and we need somebody who can show the leadership, make the tough decisions that are needed at a time when Canada has to step up and acknowledge times have changed and I'll go back. People are affordability, housing, but absolutely national security, national prosperity, Trans Mountain expansion. It all added almost a point and a half to our GDP. The minute it started flowing. The expansion part, I mean, these are not small numbers. And this is important for the prosperity and the affordability for all Canadians. And so I personally I don't care what what colour stripe the Prime Minister is. We see a we see leadership now that is taking the import of Canada at a time of significant challenge and making some tough decisions. And I and I fully support that.

[Host]: These are going to be some tough decisions that we will continue to follow. Martha. Carolyn, we are going to have to leave it there. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

[Caroline Brouillette]: Thank you so much.