Paying attention to changing climate
Opinion
Many Manitobans were disappointed to learn that Terry Duguid was not reappointed as minister for Environment and Climate Change Canada. A Mark Carney appointment just two weeks prior to the recent federal election — having served perhaps the shortest ministerial term on record — he is being replaced by an unexceptional Toronto lawyer. Apparently ECCC is not a priority for the new administration.
This should not come as a surprise given the lack of attention paid by either major party to environmental issues on the campaign trail, save for both savaging the carbon tax and trying to outdo one another in their love of pipelines.
The prime minister had a great deal to say about climate change in his book Value(s), none of which carried over into electioneering. Again, this is not surprising as the PM is a former investment banker who believes that tinkering with the system that caused the problem will solve it. Apparently only by making it extremely profitable can we save the planet — doing good by doing well. Well, maybe.
Russell Wangersky / Free Press
The climate is all around us, every day. Are governments paying close enough attention?
So, what should our new federal government and its rookie ECCC minister do to face a longer-term existential crisis while grappling with a shorter-term threat from our former best friends? Focus on renewable energy, energy infrastructure, water, science and co-operative federalism. All of these fall under the umbrella of climate change adaptation and none is fully under the ECCC mandate. Our response to climate change requires a government-wide effort. But ECCC has a very important role to play.
Notice that climate change mitigation — reducing carbon emissions — is not on my list. America now produces twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia. Washington has turned the clock back six decades to the heyday of fossil fuels and is exporting the notion around the world to an alarmingly receptive audience There are cost-effective ways to reduce emissions that we shouldn't ignore, but otherwise mitigation must go on the back burner for at least the next four years. There is no point in crippling our oil sector (and fatally alienating Alberta); it will make absolutely no difference to climate change. That sector will die a natural death and sooner than many suspect.
It is imperative that Canada expands its renewable energy capacity — wind, solar and hydro — as rapidly as possible. This may mean rethinking short-term economics, building beyond immediate demand. As with most past environmental issues, climate change will have to have us by the throat before global action is unavoidable; but when that occurs it will be sudden. The future may belong to those who can make that rapid transition to net zero.
Key to a renewable energy, self-sufficient economy is the ability to move electrical energy from coast to coast to coast. Presently our power grid is oriented north-south and that has to change. ECCC Minister Julie Dabrusin's role in energy production and transmission is largely regulatory. A regulatory process that minimizes environmental impact, co-ordinates the transboundary dimension of energy transmission, respects local concerns and delivers timely decisions is required. An aggressive renewable energy strategy is all about being prepared for a rapid transition to carbon lite industry and transportation. Not an easy task.
Water is the key to insulating our agriculture, infrastructure and urban centres from the expected extremes of surplus and scarcity. It will mean overhauling our water infrastructure, conveyance, retention and flood protection. ECCC and its Canada Water Agency — created by the now-discarded Terry Duguid — has a significant role in partnering with the provinces in this infrastructure overhaul, both from a financial and regulatory perspective. Another massive undertaking.
Science is critical to our response to climate change. There may not be a technological magic bullet to extract us from this mess, but we won't find one if we're not looking. And our water-related adaptation has to be supported by sound science. There is already a very solid water research platform to build on, much of it now co-ordinated by the Winnipeg-based water agency.
Weekday Evenings
Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening.
No climate change adaptation strategy will work without intimate co-operation between the federal, provincial and territorial governments, something that was not a strength of the Trudeau government, and on environmental matters was a disaster. The ECCC minister might start by reviving the once-effective Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment — like the water agency also headquartered in Winnipeg. It can and should be the national coordinating body for all matters water.
Of course, it all comes down to political will and money. This has to be a government of Canada priority in which ECCC plays an important supportive role. Money ought not to be the problem. We have come up with billions to support important issues like response to COVID, Reconciliation and economic support during the current trade uncertainty; we can fund climate change adaptation.
Perhaps the tariff wars will be all this government can handle. Perhaps some geoengineering Hail Mary will solve the climate problem. Perhaps the world's major economies will wake up, perhaps.
Unfortunately a future based on perhaps is not a very solid one.
Norman Brandson is the former deputy minister of the Manitoba departments of environment, conservation and water stewardship.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Observer
35 minutes ago
- National Observer
Carney, Eby and Ford should cool their deregulatory rush
Canada is weakening environmental safeguards and threatening relationships with the country's First Nations in a mad rush to generate new resource-extraction developments. If steps aren't taken quickly to bring First Nations onside with major projects, Canada should prepare for strained relations and a barrage of court injunctions and blockades with enormous power to slow industry. Since the trade war began, the feds and governments of BC and Ontario have hastily proposed or passed bills to speed resource development, downgrading environmental protection in the process. And while all three governments still promise to meet Indigenous consultation requirements, none obtained buy-in from First Nations before the bills were presented. They also made it clear that going forward, they want consultation to click along a heck of a lot faster. This decide-first, talk-later approach is not sitting well with First Nations whose territories bear most of the environmental risks posed by resource extraction. The excuse for the development rush, of course, is the US tariff attack on Canada's economy, which has hammered some of our key industries, such as steel production and automobile manufacturing. Fallout from the tariffs have raised fears of a recession, and it has been widely accepted among all levels of government that the fix is more development and a broader international trading base to lessen our dependence on the US. On Friday, Prime Minister Mark Carney presented his blueprint for economic success — a bill with an expedited two-year approval timeline for major infrastructure projects deemed in the national interest. It calls for a new project preapproval process that massively weakens environmental impact assessments. Assessments could no longer form grounds to kill a project — instead they will be used to identify and mitigate environmental risks. Backlash from the powerful Assembly of First Nations (AFN) was immediate. 'The Assembly of First Nations remains deeply concerned about the lack of time and appropriate process to carry out the Crown's consultation and consent obligations, especially given the potentially massive impact on the rights of First Nations,' AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said in a statement. An emergency meeting is being scheduled for this week. Similar bills in Ontario and BC have met with the same reaction. Ontario's Bill 5 allows the province to ram through development in special economic zones with no regard for existing provincial or municipal laws or regulations. In particular, the Ontario government wants quick access to mining in the province's mineral-rich north, known as the Ring of Fire. If major projects aren't supported by First Nations, Canada can expect strained relations and a barrage of court injunctions and blockades with enormous power to slow industry. @ writes for @ The Chiefs of Ontario, which represents Ontario First Nations, were understandably insulted when Ontario passed the bill which they say abrogates treaty rights and ignores their environmental and social concerns. Grand Chief Abram Benedict said his organization was denied requests to discuss the bill during the planning stages. The government's attitude seems to be ''after the bill passing we'll go consult,' and that's not how it works,' said Benedict, who wants the bill rescinded. Two bills in BC that could bypass environmental assessments to expedite large infrastructure projects, including critical minerals mines, and renewable energy projects, drew criticism from some First Nations leaders and former NDP cabinet minister Melanie Mark, who is Indigenous. Navigating the disparate interests of business and First Nations is no mean feat for any government. Big business has long argued that Canada's slow, unpredictable project approval process is hampering economic progress. A study done by the C.D. Howe Institute, a conservative non-profit think tank, blames, in part, high regulatory costs and complex negotiations with several levels of government, including Indigenous governments. The federal government has acknowledged delays are slowing Canada's economy and in Budget 2023 promised to improve the efficiency of the impact assessment and permitting processes. But there is a big difference between streamlining an impact assessment process, bogged down by jurisdictional overlap, and defanging it completely. In this supercharged building environment, everyone seems to be forgetting about the multiple court decisions upholding the rights of First Nations to be partners at the bargaining table. There are clear warning signs that recent government bills may be an overcorrection. In BC, even the business-boosting provincial chamber of commerce spoke against the Infrastructure Projects Act because First Nations were not consulted at the outset. The failure could result in legal challenges, the chamber warned. There are a few takeaways here that governments at all levels could take to heart before their experiments in deregulation end in court, protests and frustration. For reconciliation to be meaningful, it really should happen at the front end — anything less is insulting. And environmental protections should not be allowed to wax and wane with every change in government. The former Conservative government of Stephen Harper took a wrecking ball to environmental protections, cutting spending on environmental research and monitoring, muzzling federal scientists and downgrading Canada's commitment to lower carbon pollution by pulling out of the Kyoto Accord. Harper's agenda gave birth to the Indigenous-led Idle No More movement which rolled out protests, blockades on rail corridors and highways in 2012 and 2013. Trudeau's Liberals reversed that trend, with enhanced species and habit protections, increased recognition of Indigenous rights and a suite of ambitious climate policies, some of which succeeded better than others. Just as too much red tape should not be allowed to stagnate our economy, a trade war should not be used as an excuse to blast hard-fought environmental protections. Nor should it supplant reconciliation efforts and consultation with First Nations. There is a delicate balance to be had here, and we haven't yet hit it right.
Ottawa Citizen
2 hours ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Raises, retention bonuses promised for Canadian Forces personnel
Article content Pay increases for military personnel as well as retention bonuses and increased training allowances for particular Canadian Forces members are to be part of the government's spending boost for defence. Article content In addition, it is expected that around 1,400 new staff will be hired at the Department of National Defence. Article content Article content The initiatives were outlined Monday during a technical briefing that followed Prime Minister Mark Carney's announcement that defence spending was being significantly increased. The Liberal government noted that it was pumping in more funding so Canada will meet the NATO spending target of two per cent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year. Article content Article content Carney repeated his election promises to purchase new submarines and other equipment as well as improve military housing and benefits. Article content 'Members of our armed forces will get a well deserved salary increase, which will contribute to better recruitment and retention of personnel,' said Carney. Article content But defence officials at the technical briefing had few answers. Article content They did point out that not only will there be pay increases but in some cases boosts in training allowances and retention bonuses for key military personnel. They did not have information on what specific Canadian Forces jobs or trades would be eligible for bonuses. Article content More health-care workers will be hired for the Canadian Forces and the civilian workforce will be expanded so military personnel can focus on operations, government officials said at the technical briefing. Under government-imposed rules, the officials who provided the briefing cannot be identified. Article content Article content In January, the Ottawa Citizen reported that military staff were recommending retention bonuses to keep key personnel from leaving the ranks. But there were questions at the time about whether the government would fund such a plan. Article content Article content Although the Canadian Forces doesn't currently have retention bonuses, the military does offer various extra pay or allowances for those in particular jobs or handling specific duties, the Department of National Defence has noted. In addition, the military does provide extra payment to recruit individuals with particular skills. Article content Various western militaries, facing personnel shortages, have been using retention bonuses to entice individuals to continue to stay in the ranks. Article content On Nov. 22, 2024, the British government announced bonuses equivalent to $54,000 for aircraft engineers who sign up for an additional three years of military service. Privates and lance corporals who have already served four years would be eligible for a new retention bonus, which is the equivalent of $14,000.
Globe and Mail
2 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Letters to the editor, June 10: ‘AI is not only an issue in higher education, but at the grade-school level as well'
Re 'B.C.'s energy minister says Ottawa should focus on practical projects with ready investors' (Report on Business, June 9): A retired economist would like to appeal to the former economist and now Prime Minister. I hope the process for nation-building projects is the international gold standard for public decision-making: cost-benefit analysis. We economists know that broad consultation in a transparent, structured decision-making process is the best way to find projects which provide the highest net benefits to Canadians. The government should grant standing in these analyses to First Nations and affected citizens. Mark Carney should take a lead in setting the inputs to these analyses. Progressive governments make this information known when taxpayers are on the hook for infrastructure projects. Provinces can provide the projects, but the feds should transparently control the process, parameters and participants. Published shadow wage, social costs of carbon, value of life and other cost-benefit parameters would mean that fantasy and knee-jerk projects are filtered out as bad for the health and well-being of Canadians. John Parker Toronto Re 'Carney to announce Canada's defence spending will hit NATO's target of 2% of GDP this fiscal year, sources say' (June 9): With the western half of the country on fire, a massive housing and infrastructure shortage, a drug epidemic and a health care crisis, how is it at all responsible to commit to increasing Canada's NATO spending to 2 per cent of GDP? It is said that this increase can cost between $15- to $20-billion, an enormous sum of money that should be used to address the aforementioned issues, which I see as more urgent threats to our national 'security' and well-being than anything this NATO spending may address. Mark Carney makes the case that this will boost our own homegrown defence industry. And herein lies the true aim of this new direction, in my opinion: a massive corporate handout to Canadian defence contractors and firms that would send large portions of this capital to their shareholders and executives. War is a racket, and Mark Carney was a banker, but I think we should expect more from our government amidst such dire circumstances. Evan Marnoch Winnipeg Re 'Toronto wrangles with a simple question: What is a multiplex?' (Real Estate, June 6): What stands out to me is again greedy developers pushing the boundaries of proposed zoning to maximize profit. Planning is then tied up in knots trying to regulate these outlandish proposals. This then creates the outcomes referenced: a couple of hundred applications on hold. Until we give city planners final authority on design, developers will likely continue to slow development approvals, not the city. Michael Marmoreo Toronto Re 'Canada can't solve its housing crisis without the provinces' (June 6): The most depressing aspect of this analysis and conclusion is that it could have been articulated five or even 10 years ago. The same paralysis remains, the same roadblocks in place hindering meaningful progress. In my own parcel of the country, at least two plots of city-owned land, publicly designated for affordable or seniors housing, have sat for years unscathed by any signs of development. Much of the public is tired of the shell game between federal, provincial or municipal jurisdictional. Just get it built already. Terry Sherbino Penticton, B.C. Re 'The criminal justice system keeps failing sexual-assault survivors. There has to be a better way' (June 9): As a practicing criminal lawyer, I commend the recommendation that it's time for Ontario to lift the moratorium on the option of restorative justice for sexual offences. In the right case, with an accused willing to accept accountability for their actions and a complainant who would be satisfied hearing that in a supportive, structured setting, the justice system and society would benefit from the use of that process. To deny that alternative would be an unjustifiable form of paternalism. Jeffrey Manishen Hamilton Re 'Some university professors say AI is here to stay, so students should learn how to use it' (June 4): Such use of artificial intelligence, if prevalent, circumvents the purpose of a university education, which is to read primary sources, to think and to analyze information. A return to individual oral presentations as tests could help ensure that students are doing some learning at a university level. Sandra Witelson, PhD Hamilton Parent of a Grade 4 student here. Dismayed to report that artificial intelligence is not only an issue in higher education, but at the grade-school level as well. My daughter recently brought home a research assignment and advised me that her slides could be completed by copying and pasting online search results. When I asked her teacher for clarification, the response was that 'many students have utilized the AI results.' Very disappointing that students are not given the chance to learn how to write an essay. I hope we can harness the power of AI soon to develop critical thinkers. As for now, it is proving to be a bumpy ride. Sarah Timney Toronto Re 'In this economy, can we even afford dogs and cats any more?' (June 5): Ironically, we had taken our dog to our veterinarian the day before this article was published. Our healthy five-year old's bill was $550 (this included five pills for ticks, heartworm and fleas). Our vet's practice was bought out by a U.S. company. A solution to this issue would be to increase the number of vets being graduated from Canadian colleges and universities. Our dentist's practice was also bought out by a U.S. company. When calling around for a new dentist, this wasn't the only one in town. If U.S. companies can profit from this, why can't Canadians? Jo-Anne Twamley Belleville, Ont. Re 'For the love of God, can someone please help CRA fix its website?' (Report on Business, June 3): An unfortunately funny article. Instead of just getting the limited functionality of the Canada Revenue Agency website to work, how about we go for gold and get some improvements? Most Canadians tax returns are simple enough that the CRA could complete the entire return automatically, requiring only approval; Finland and others already do this. Require institutions with tax-fee savings account holdings to issue monthly, not yearly, reports. Allow sort-by date of tax slips so users don't have to scroll through dozens to find out which institution filed after April 30. Respond faster than 'if you don't hear from us in six months, try calling us at 1-800-I-GIVE-UP.' We can and should expect more from our national institutions. Barry Bortnick Calgary Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@
