Althia Raj: Did Mark Carney give away the Liberals’ advantage on climate change?

Whether he intended to or not, Prime Minister Mark Carney cast aside a tenet of the Liberals’ brand last Thursday when he signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Alberta that jeopardizes the Grits’ work addressing climate change.

For more than two decades, the Liberal Party of Canada told voters that it was the party that not only cared about climate change but was best able to address it. Election after election, from Jean Chrétien’s climate pivot in 2002 with the ratifying of the Kyoto accord, to Stéphane Dion’s “Green Shift,” to Justin Trudeau’s pan-Canadian framework on “Clean Growth and Climate Change,” to Carney’s platform, which mentioned the threat of climate change 27 times, the Liberal party told Canadians that the future of the planet depended on strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it pledged to do that while strengthening the economy through clean energy investments.

The Grits won back-to-back-to-back governments, in large part, by painting their Conservative opponents as climate skeptics. Although they kept missing targets, the Liberals’ climate plans were lauded by experts as less costly and more effective than those proposed by their opponents, and progressive swing voters supported their efforts.

Even as the Liberals cratered in public opinion polls and stopped being perceived as best able to address the challenges of affordability, housing, crime or immigration, one constant remained: the Grits polled ahead — way ahead — of the Conservatives on climate change, and on reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

But with the stroke of pen last Thursday, Carney put that at risk when he signed a deal with Alberta that weakens federal environmental regulations — regardless of a potential pipeline approval.

The prime minister’s decision to put the clean electricity regulations on the chopping block, for example, or the slow-walking of methane regulations, or his signal that the oil tanker moratorium act is negotiable, or the suggestion — made in the MOU — that support from affected Indigenous Peoples and British Columbia is not required before construction of a bitumen pipeline on their territory can be fast-tracked, are not just questionable public policy moves but confusing political moves, too.

If the federal Liberals wanted to help Alberta build a pipeline, why not pitch an expanded Trans Mountain pipeline route that avoids the coast of northern B.C.?

With polls suggesting the vast majority of Albertans want to remain part of Canada, why did the federal Liberals weaken themselves to prop up a premier who constantly battles with them? From a crass political standpoint, why not let the separatist wing of Danielle Smith’s United Conservative Party weaken her, and help prop up the provincial NDP instead?

Many Liberals are frightened. The caucus is deeply divided. While Prairie MPs praise the MOU as “good news,” others speak of their supporters feeling “betrayed.” It’s not just B.C. MPs who fear losing their seats. Quebec and Ontario MPs are also nervous.

Why wouldn’t they be? Last month’s budget did not deliver on Carney’s platform promises. There were no measures to help Canadians retrofit their homes, for example, or assist them in making other “clean choices.” The budget and the MOU instead laid out a plan for taxpayers to support big industrial polluters with more tax breaks and subsidies so they could reduce their emissions.

From a national unity standpoint, there are other concerns. Cabinet ministers are now saying things that are not in the MOU, or contradict the MOU, or contradict Alberta’s premier on the MOU. Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin suggested this week, for example, that she could negotiate an equivalency requirement with Alberta to compensate for the emission reductions lost from the suspension of the clean electricity regulations. Heritage Minister Marc Miller said Monday on CBC that “there are a lot of conditions that need to be fulfilled that aren’t in the MOU, and I think the prime minister has acknowledged this much.”

With the Liberals already struggling to explain how they can be trusted — after all, they wrote on page 348 of their budget that “enhanced oil recovery” would not qualify for a tax credit to secure Green Party Leader Elizabeth May’s vote, only to reverse themselves two weeks later to court Smith’s support — will Canadians believe them? Can Albertans believe them?

Carney’s government has a mere five months to negotiate a deal with Alberta that addresses methane, electricity and carbon pricing — a deal that will be watched to ensure it aligns with Ottawa’s new climate competitiveness policy, its federal benchmark on industrial carbon pricing, and new electricity rules.

Those negotiations will set a template for the rest of the country, warns the Canadian Climate Institute’s Rick Smith. If Alberta gets a carve-out, he says, so will other provinces — and climate policy across Canada could unravel.

This isn’t just a pitfall with consequences for potential Liberal voters and the party’s brand.

If the goal of the MOU truly was to avoid a sovereignty crisis, backtracking on commitments made in it to Alberta might spur more anger than it solves in the Prairies. And that’s saying nothing about the potential impacts in Quebec.