![\"minus](\"https:\/\/thenarwhal.ca\/wp-content\/themes\/thenarwhal\/assets\/icons\/remove-circle.svg\")
![\"plus](\"https:\/\/thenarwhal.ca\/wp-content\/themes\/thenarwhal\/assets\/icons\/add-circle.svg\"\/)
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Summary<\/p>\n
After leaving cabinet late last year, former environment minister Steven Guilbeault will vacate his seat in Parliament altogether this summer.<\/p>\n
He sees a fundamental difference in his approach to addressing climate change and that of Prime Minister Mark Carney.<\/p>\n
Despite his exit, Guilbeault says he made great strides during his time in government and encourages young people to consider politics.<\/p>\n
Steven Guilbeault says if he were asked again to leave activism for politics, \u201cI would do it in a heartbeat.\u201d<\/p>\n
As he prepares to resign his seat, the former Liberal environment minister has been called the most ambitious<\/a> the country has ever had. He believes his time in government was worth it \u2014 that, by being on the inside, one can achieve great things. His message to young people interested in climate action: consider the political arena.<\/p>\n Still, Guilbeault leaves as several major environmental policies he had a hand in developing are being rolled back or brushed aside by the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney. Guilbeault believes the prime minister thinks global markets will take care of things largely on their own. He disagrees.<\/p>\n Last week, two former members of Canada\u2019s legislated advisory body on climate said Carney needs to be honest about how his policies have made the promise to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 impossible. Guilbeault says the government is now facing two choices: keep its federal net-zero law in place and likely get sued by stakeholders for violating it, or repeal it and send a \u201cpowerful message\u201d about how the prime minister sees the world.<\/p>\n Guilbeault spoke to The Narwhal for more than half an hour by phone on June 15. Reached for comment, Carney\u2019s office said it is still committed to maintaining a path to net-zero emissions by 2050, but can\u2019t rely solely on \u201crestrictions and prohibitions.\u201d<\/p>\n This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.<\/p>\n I want to start with an interview<\/a> you gave in 2022 in The Guardian. You said, \u2018I came into politics so I could continue to be an activist.\u2019 In your recent speech<\/a> in Parliament you said, \u2018I fully intend to keep fighting.\u2019 So if you needed to go in to be an activist, and now you\u2019re coming out to be an activist, where does that leave things \u2014 is it better to be on the inside or the outside?<\/p>\n I think we need people both on the outside and on the inside. I would like to think that I have shown that by being on the inside, you can achieve things, you can set goals for yourself or as a party \u2014 like we, for the first time in our history, under the previous administration, have shown that through public policies, we can fight pollution and grow the economy. This has never been done before in the history of our country.\u00a0<\/p>\n We\u2019ve shown that we can do great things when it comes to conservation, to improving environmental rights issues and environmental justice issues, including the right to a healthy environment<\/a> in The Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Some of the work we have done using emergency orders, namely in Sarnia, Ont., with Aamjiwnaang First Nation<\/a>, what we did on nature in 2022 at the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Montreal<\/a> \u2014 I think it is absolutely possible to be an activist inside.<\/p>\n Dive deeper on this topic<\/p>\n My decision to leave politics is that I feel that, certainly when it comes to climate change \u2026 I can no longer continue to have an impact. That\u2019s my own personal assessment, and obviously different people will come to different conclusions. But I can no longer have an impact inside, and it\u2019s time for me to go back on the outside.<\/p>\n People in the climate space have expressed a sense of betrayal with Prime Minister Mark Carney on climate and the environment. They say, \u2018What happened to the UN climate guy<\/a>?\u2019 and \u2018What happened to the guy who wrote the book on values<\/a>?\u2019 Is that a feeling you share?<\/p>\n I\u2019m not sure I would put it in those words. But if you look at the work he did with the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, it was largely based on voluntary commitments by companies, investors and financial institutions. There was really no transparency or accountability. I\u2019m not saying it has no value, it certainly has value. We\u2019re seeing how, globally right now, the markets are playing a really important role. Renewables are driving two times more investment<\/a> than fossil fuels are, globally. One in four cars sold globally was an electric vehicle<\/a> \u2014 not Europe, not Sweden or Norway, but globally.\u00a0<\/p>\n I could be wrong about this, but I think where the prime minister and I differ in terms of our views of what needs to be done on climate change, is that I have come to the conclusion that he thinks that the markets are going to do it. And that governments don\u2019t have an important role to play, if only to put in place measures to attract investors and tax credits.\u00a0<\/p>\n I think we\u2019re going to make some progress in Canada on taxonomy and disclosure<\/a>, because the prime minister sees this as an important element to attract investment for decarbonization. But I don\u2019t think he sees an important role for public policy, for regulations. I think we need markets to achieve what we want to achieve, but markets alone won\u2019t get us there.<\/p>\n I think that\u2019s perhaps something I had not understood before \u2014 and I suspect I\u2019m not the only one \u2014 about his vision for change. I guess you could call it his theory of change, when it comes to fighting climate change.<\/p>\n It took several years for environment and climate policies to be dreamed up, consulted on, put into legislation or regulations and enacted. Relatively speaking, it\u2019s been lightspeed to tear many of them down again over the past year. Why haven\u2019t they proved more durable?<\/p>\n Well, it\u2019s always easier to destroy than it is to build. That\u2019s true of regulations, it\u2019s unfortunately true of many things. [That\u2019s] number one.<\/p>\n Number two: many of these things, despite what has been said publicly, are still in force. The clean electricity regulations are still in place. Many of the changes we said we would make on methane [emission reductions], the regulations that apply right now in Canada, are still the federal methane regulations that have been approved. So the [methane allowances] in the agreement with Alberta<\/a>, they will need to go through the process of making regulatory changes, which is more complicated than switching something on and off.<\/p>\n Dive deeper on this topic<\/p>\n But you\u2019re right, by the looks of it, this is where we\u2019re heading. And yes, you\u2019re right, it was long and painstakingly difficult at times to put these things in place. But that\u2019s the price to pay to live in a democracy. A duly elected government in a democracy can change things that previous governments have done, and that\u2019s something we have to accept.<\/p>\n Do you think the days of Canada\u2019s net-zero law<\/a> \u2014 committing us to negating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and setting increasingly stringent targets to get there \u2014 are numbered?<\/p>\n I think a lot of people don\u2019t realize that our 2030 and 2035 targets are not voluntary targets in Canada, they\u2019re legally binding, and there will be consequences if Canada doesn\u2019t meet those targets. It\u2019s going to become painfully clear in the very near future that we won\u2019t be able to achieve those targets, regardless of what the government continues to say. I mean, you can be committed to those targets and not have any chance of meeting them, so it\u2019s a bit disingenuous to say that we are committed.\u00a0<\/p>\n I think they\u2019re going to be faced with two difficult choices: either they keep the climate accountability act<\/a> in place, and then what is likely going to happen is that the federal government is going to get sued by different stakeholders for not abiding by federal law. Or they have to repeal it, which would send a pretty powerful message to Canadians about how little this government is concerned with climate change.<\/p>\n If they did decide to repeal the law, to what would you compare that?<\/p>\n Well, with the United States, we would become one of a handful of countries in the world to basically turn our back on the Paris Agreement. That\u2019s in effect what it would mean. And I suspect that you know it\u2019s true that, right now, when you look at public opinion research, Canadians care more about other things than they care about climate, but they still care about climate change.<\/p>\n You talked about the prime minister putting faith in a market-based solution to climate action. Do you think that idea extends to his position on international agreements like the Paris Agreement, to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius?<\/p>\n That\u2019s a good question. I mean, it is interesting that when you look at the spring economic statement, Canada renewed its climate finance commitment under the Paris Agreement<\/a>, [committing billions toward climate change adaptation and climate-related businesses in \u201cvulnerable countries\u201d]. That is one area where Canada is still doing pretty good. We\u2019ve slightly increased our climate finance package for the first time ever, we\u2019ve set a goal of mobilizing funds with the private sector. The UK has reduced their climate fund<\/a>, France has, the United States has. From that context, the fact that Canada would slightly increase theirs is, in and of itself, a small victory. And we\u2019ll take all the victories we can take right now, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n The honest answer to your question right now is, I don\u2019t know what his views are on that. But we may infer from our climate finance commitment that it is still something that\u2019s important to him.<\/p>\n At the environment committee recently, Catherine Abreu and Simon Donner said the government didn\u2019t want to hear from the net-zero advisory body. Does the Carney government not listen to experts?<\/p>\n We can still see that scientists and experts have a voice, and they can still express their opinion, which was a big difference from the Stephen Harper years.<\/p>\n I do think that there is a negative bias by this government towards regulations, and regulations are perceived by many as being some form of impediment to free markets and impeding investment. I would disagree with that analysis. You go back to 2024, for example, Canada came in second in the G20 for foreign direct investment<\/a> in comparison to the size of our economy, while we were full-speed ahead deploying our climate change plan. So it seems that foreign investors didn\u2019t have a problem with coming to Canada to invest, despite the fact that we had an aggressive plan to fight climate change. This idea that these two things are in opposition to one another doesn\u2019t seem to stand the test of facts.<\/p>\n Dive deeper on this topic<\/p>\n When you say the government holds a negative bias, are you talking about Prime Minister Carney specifically, or members of his cabinet, or senior officials or all of the above?<\/p>\n From what I\u2019ve been able to observe, I think it\u2019s the case that there are many people who feel this way, some on the political side, some on the bureaucracy side. I\u2019m not saying everyone agrees with that idea, but certainly around the prime minister there are many, which is why we\u2019re seeing such a push towards deregulation, because many people in positions of influence are pushing for this agenda.\u00a0<\/p>\n Unfortunately, we\u2019re putting at risk the health of Canadians<\/a> with some of the changes that are being proposed \u2014 whether it\u2019s on impact assessment reform or pesticides management. I think we will likely quickly come to the conclusion that we\u2019re doing so at a greater risk for Canadians.<\/p>\n Is there someone in particular you\u2019re thinking of around the prime minister who is pushing for that deregulation?<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s larger than one or two people. At least with people who have important portfolios on the economic side, I think it is a general perception.<\/p>\n What\u2019s your message to young people now, who are just being introduced to the climate movement? They see you deciding to quit politics, talking about the backsliding that\u2019s going on. They see you talking about getting into it in the 1990s. Maybe they\u2019re a bit skeptical that there is the same sort of urgency and hope as there was in that decade. What\u2019s your message to them?<\/p>\n My first message would be that we need good people in politics. I was there for almost seven years. In working with many others, I was able to achieve many things. There\u2019s no way I could have helped to convince 196 countries to protect 30 per cent of the planet in Montreal in 2022 if I had stayed at \u00c9quiterre<\/a>. Just not possible.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/NAT-Guilbeault-Swearing-In-20250314-Morozuk-WEB.jpg\"\/)
Steven Guilbeault was sworn in as Minister of Canadian Culture and Identity and Parks Canada under Prime Minister Mark Carney in March 2025. It was a new role for the Montreal MP, who served as environment minister under former prime minister Justin Trudeau. Photo: Kamara Morozuk \/ The Narwhal<\/p>\n![\"Canadian](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/NAT-Guilbeault-Portrait-Phillips-Boyle-WEB-1024x683.jpg\"\/)
Steven Guilbeault counts the passage of the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which saw 196 countries commit to protecting 30 per cent of their land and water by 2030, as one of his successes as environment minister. While he is leaving politics this summer, he encourages young people to participate: \u201cWe need good people in politics.\u201d Photo: Selena Phillips-Boyle \/ The Narwhal<\/p>\n