Steven Guilbeault on his split with Carney

This week on two blocks from the White House, it's been revealed that Donald Trump earned at least $2 billion during his first year back in the White House. So we're asking, how has the president made so much in office? And is it even allowed? Join me, Willie Lowry, and my fellow Washington correspondents, Paul Hunter, and guest host Katie Nicholson as we break down U.S. politics from a Canadian perspective. Find and follow two blocks from the White House wherever you get your podcasts. And watch us on YouTube every Wednesday.

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. Stephen Gilbo walked to work on Parliament Hill last week for what is likely the final time. For nearly seven years, he served as a liberal MP from Montreal and was a cabinet minister for most of those years, leading portfolios on heritage, and perhaps most notably, the environment and climate change. Now, at odds with Mark Carney's government on the climate file, he is leaving politics behind. After resigning from Cabinet late last year, following that federal deal with Alberta over a prospective pipeline,

he will step down as a liberal MP later this summer. And Stephen Gilbo is with me in our Toronto studio to talk about all of that. Stephen Gilbo, good morning. Good morning, Matt. On that walk, that final walk to work in Ottawa last week, what was going through your mind? Quite a few things. Reflecting obviously on, as you said, like almost seven years.

in federal politics, six of those seven as a cabinet minister, the ups and downs, the victories, the defeat, a bit of everything, really. How different was it from the first time you walked in? One walks in with hope and optimism and feeling like anything's possible, right? Yes, and I think the last thing I would, I hope your listeners will take away from my decision, is not one of defeat or despair or disillusioned. If I had to do it all over again, it was hard. It was challenging.

It was really, really difficult at times. But it's an incredible privilege to serve as a member of parliament first and foremost, because in our political system, that's our first responsibility. And then serve in cabinet for six years. Politics is a place where sometimes if you work well, if you surround yourself with good people, if you know how to make alliances, you can do incredible things.

So why are you leaving? Because I feel that on the issue of climate change, which is an issue very dear to my heart, something I've spent, I mean, the vast majority of my adult life working on, I can no longer have a positive influence on the direction that the government has taken on this issue. and I want to continue trying to have a positive impact on this,

as well as other issues like nature, biodiversity, fight against plastic pollution. So I'm going to, my goal is to continue this fight but outside politics. What was the breaking point? I'd said in the introduction that perhaps it was the federal deal with Alberta over a prospective pipeline. Was that, as they say, the straw that broke the camels back? when so I I first saw the proposed memorandum of understanding the MOU two days before it was made public back in November between the federal government in Alberta and I at that point it was pretty baked in I I was asked you know if you had some changes to propose what would what those be and I I made a series of recommendations none of which were integrated because at that point Alberta had a deal So why would they compromise on something they really liked?

And I, as you know, Matt, in our political system, if you're a member of cabinet, you're bound by cabinet solidarity. So you have to, even if you disagree with a cabinet decision, you have to at least publicly support it. And I felt I couldn't do that with that MOU with Alberta. And it's not, so there's a debate and it will continue to be a debate for some time as to whether or not a pipeline is going, a new pipeline is going to be. be built. So for me, that was certainly an issue, but mostly it was about two things. It was what we were willing to compromise in terms of our climate strategy to please Daniel Smith. And it was also that we had made an agreement with Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, so she would support us on the budget in late 2025. Two weeks after she supported us, we renegated

that agreement with her and we included something in that M.O.E. you, that was 180 degrees what we had promised. We as a government, not me Stephen Gilbo, but we as a government had promised Elizabeth. Between those two things, I felt I couldn't, I couldn't stay in cabinet and in good conscience, support that agreement. And you feel that you could do more outside of politics than having your hands, if not on the levers of power, then certainly next to the levers of power. I think that for seven years I've been able on a number of different areas. We're talking about environmental. but also culture, cultural issues been able to have, I would argue, and others have said that as well publicly, to have a positive influence.

As I said earlier, I really think that on climate change, this government has taken a direction that is fundamentally different than the previous government on this issue. and I have tried over the last few months to influence positively the direction that we're taking with no success, with nothing to show for it. How would you describe your relationship with the prime minister, Mark Carney? Cordial. Cordial. I mean, I haven't spoken with him recently, but we've spoken a number of times since I left cabinet. I ask in part because before he entered politics, he was somebody who he coined that. phrase the tragedy of the horizon, which is about how climate change and the impacts of climate

change will outlast the short-term political ambitions and goals of those in elected office. He managed to corral, and it broke apart, but managed to corral many of the major financial institutions to support net zero initiatives. After he became prime minister, he did this interview with Michelle Hussain and Bloomberg, and she said, what happened to you? It's kind of a smile on your face when I say that, because I think a lot of people wondered, If this was the guy before he entered politics and now this is the prime minister that we're seeing, what happened to him, do you think? How do you answer that question?

Do you understand the change that he's made? Well, I knew Mark before I knew Prime Minister Carney because I have worked with him over the years on the issue of climate change, nature protection, when he was special envoy to the Secretary General of the United Nations on climate finance. And I must confess that I'm having a hard time understanding the change in direction on something he has spoken about, written about at length, which is the issue of climate change, and how he himself has many time referred to it as the challenge of our times. and one could argue well, you know, when he wrote those things, he wasn't the leader of a G7 country. There was no trade war with the United States. Some of those things are true. Some of them are not. When he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party, Donald Trump was already present of the United States.

When he was elected, Prime Minister, the tariff war had already started. And yet our electoral platform, which just barely a year old, spoke about, climate change 28 times. It did not speak about pipeline. Pipeline is an invention in the liberal platform for the 2025 election. So to depend this on changing geopolitics, I think is a bit short. So I don't have a convincing or satisfying answer to your question. It's interesting because the polling suggests that the majority of Canadians support, at the very least, the concept of a new pipeline that would move oil from Alberta to the BC coast. How do you understand that?

And does that not suggest that the prime minister is doing what Canadians want in some ways? It is true that when you look at the polls, the Liberal Party of Canada is extremely popular. There's some polls, recent polls that have shown maybe a drop in support. But this is about specific polling around the pipeline too. And I will get to pipeline. I think, I mean, we've seen that in the past. people will tend to agree more with things when they're theoretical. So we're having a discussion about a pipeline, but we don't have a route yet.

I think when, and we've seen this before with the Trans Mountain expansion, for example, under Prime Minister Trudeau, that the level of support for the pipeline will likely go down, if history tells us anything, when the project becomes more concrete, when we start seeing and talking and, understanding the impacts, the environmental impacts, the impacts to communities of such projects. So I think if we're to take this as the only indicator, I would think it's a bit of a mistake. Certainly for someone who's been working in this field for a very long time, I've seen this before. We'll be right back with more of the current podcast. You know that feeling when you reach the end of a really good true crime series?

You want to know more, more about the people involved, where the case is now, and what it's like behind the scenes. I get that. I'm Kathleen Goldhar, and on my podcast, Crime Story, I speak with the leading storytellers of true crime to dig deeper into the cases we all just can't stop thinking about. Find crime story wherever you get your podcasts. You've said, these are your words,

we are rewarding bad behavior when it comes to this deal with Alberta between Alberta and the federal government. What do you mean by that? I was actually quoting Premier Eby. David Eby, who said the same thing. From British Columbia.

As a Quebecer, I'm forced to wonder what would be the state of our Federation if in 1980 or 1995 we would have given the Partsiquequeque everything they wanted at a time when they wanted to hold a referendum? Do you believe that's what's happening now, that Alberta is getting everything it wants because it's threatening? or some people in Alberta are threatening to leave the country? Well, that's certainly what David E.B., the Premier of British Columbia is saying. That's certainly what a number of other political commentators and analysts have said. Is that what you believe?

I understand that the prime minister is worried about the separatist movement in Alberta. I think anyone who cares about the Federation should be. Where I disagree with him is on the tactics that we're using. We're negotiating with arguably the least reliable leader of any provinces in our federation. You mean Daniel Smith? The Premier of Alberta. What do you mean she's the least reliable? Well, so two weeks after the MOU was first signed back at the end of 2025,

where she had committed to strengthen industrial carbon pricing in her province, two weeks later she weakened it. We signed an agreement in principle on the reduction of the emission of methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas from the oil and gas sector, where, again, she was supposed to strengthen her own regulations on methane. Two days later, she moves ahead with new measures to weaken the Alberta regulations on methane. the MOU was supposed to help address the issue of separatism in Alberta. Shortly after that, she announced that she was going to be holding nine referendums.

So I'm forced to wonder what exactly did the Federation get in exchange for everything we left on the table as part of this agreement with Daniel Smith? And I can't find a satisfying answer. She is no fan of yours. I can imagine there are holiday cards that will be exchanged. She has said when you announced that you would be resigning as an MP, the Premier of Alberta Daniel Smith said in an interview, I think that he has done more to damage national unity probably than any other politician.

How much ownership do you take for the deterioration of the federal government's relationships with the province of Alberta? She likes to make those very flamboyant and controversial statement, which unfortunately are not supported by facts. There's a couple of pollsters who have been following for over 20 years the separatist movement in Alberta. And basically, the level of support for separatism hasn't really moved in those 20 years. So the idea that under Justin Trudeau's government separation exploded in Alberta, simply not supported by facts. Maybe beyond the idea of separation, just in terms of the hot war between the federal government and the government of Alberta. I think I was a very convenient political target for Premier Smith because I represent many of the things that part of her base despise.

many have said that I was very progressive, very left-leaning, pro-environment, pro-fight against climate change. And I have done things in the past that they've used to say that, you know, I'm anti-development. That's one thing that we've heard. Well, then one of the things we've heard when we've been in Alberta, is some of the anger that is there is directed at you because people believe that you and the policies you support it

were directly attacking those who work in the oil and gas sector, for example, or attacking their livelihoods in the way that they make a living, for example. Do you understand where that anger would come from? I've certainly seen that anger. That being said, again, it's not supported by facts. When you actually look at the data, oil sand production increased more rapidly under Justin Trudeau's liberal government than it did under Stephen Harper's. Were you happy about that? to the great despair of many of my friends in the environmental movement,

I had to remind them that in our federation, the federal government doesn't control the use of natural resources. And it was as impossible for me as an environment minister to tell Alberta that they couldn't use their oil. No more that I could tell Quebec that they couldn't use their water for their dams. Natural resources in Canada are a provincial jurisdiction. So what I could do is put in place measures to tackle the pollution that came from industrial activities, including the oil and gas sector. And I think, I mean, for decades now, we have left the oil and gas sector off to hook when it comes to doing their fair share and fighting pollution, whereas many other sectors, most of the other sectors of our economy, have improved.

This was not a federal liberal idea. In 2015, I was on stage with Rachel Notley, the NDP Premier of Alberta, when she introduced her climate leadership plan, I was on stage with leaders of the oil sand sectors, three or four CEOs from the major companies who supported industrial carbon pricing in Alberta, who supported putting a cap on the emissions of the oil and gas sector. So, I mean, you can despise me as much as you want, if you're in Alberta and believe that the liberals were coming after.

but it was Albertans who first introduced those ideas. It's a different time than when you were on those stages with oil and gas leaders and with Rachel Notley. There's now, and again, not to just rely on polling, but the sense broadly in the polling sports of this is that Canadians are less seized by climate change now, compared to other issues like cost of living and what's happening south of the border and the fact that the U.S. President keeps going on about Canada becoming a 51st state. How do you understand that? That this is not top of mind for people anymore. If it was. My kids like to call me old man, lovingly and with lots of kindness in their eyes when they say that,

which means I've had the luxury of doing this for a very long time. And we've seen cycles in the last three decades where environmental issues were more top of minds and other instances where they're less. and it is influenced by things like what's happening with the economy, what's happening with jobs. And what research is showing us right now in Canada, and David Costello from Abacus, put something out a couple of weeks ago on that very interesting paper saying it's not that people don't care about climate change anymore, but they care more about other things. I think the government has chosen to focus more on the other things that Canadians are concerned about and feel that they can get away with not acting as much. And again, I don't want people to think that I'm saying that we're no longer fighting climate change in Canada.

We still are. But nowhere near to the same level and with the same determination that we did under Prime Minister Trudeau. But get away is a really interesting phrase because you have said you're not the only person within the party or the caucus that is concerned about where the prime minister is. There were these 14 liberal MPs who signed this letter saying that, yeah, they were worried about backsliding, for example. If the prime minister doesn't listen to those voices, what's at stake?

Well, shortly before I left my position as environment ministers towards the end of 2024, Canada was tracking to reduce its climate change pollution by at least 36% by 2030. We were supposed to get at least 50% reduction. So we weren't quite there, but we were getting close. There was an analysis done earlier this year by the Canadian Climate Institute, an independent Tink, that said that with the backsliding that we've seen in the last year, and that was pre-signing of the MOU with Alberta, we would be lucky now if we would be able to achieve roughly minus 20%.

That essentially the Canadian Climate Institute said we're not going to meet any of our mission's targets. It's not the interim targets for 2026, not the Paris Agreement for 2030, or the long-term goal of net zero by 2050. I agree with that assessment. I have looked at it myself. What are the consequences? Well, there are a number of consequences. Some legal. our Paris objectives are legally binding in Canada.

There's an act that defines what those targets are and that binds the government to meeting those targets. So we can't simply ignore them. There are going to be legal consequences. There are economic consequences by, if I may use that analogy, but by putting our foot off the gas pedal on climate change, we will be missing out on opportunities in terms of the transition. And when you look at what's happening worldwide,

there's now twice as more money invested in clean technology than there is in fossil fuels compared to what was the case 10 years ago. And what just happened in Iran, a number of countries, especially in Asia, for example, are accelerating the reduction of their dependencies on fossil fuels and saying we're going to go even faster in the transitions, which means we will see in a very short term, a reduction in worldwide demand for fossil fuels.

In the meantime, you have U.S. government and now the Canadian government, who seem to be saying we're doubling down on fossil fuels. Because in part, what we've seen during the Iran crisis is that the world still runs on oil and gas. Yes, but you can't bank the economic future of a country on a short-term problem. I can't see what the benefit of that will be when probably around 2030, we will see peak demand for oil products. 2030?

That is what the International Energy Agency has been saying. In 2017, one in 70s, one in 70 vehicles around the world sold was electric. At the end of 2024, it was one in four. Globally, we're not talking about Norway or Sweden. We're talking about around the world. So as more and more countries decide to elect, electrify their transportation, their industries, their buildings.

Demand for oil is going to come down. And I think the third consequence of not doing what we should be doing in Canada is a moral one. How can we as a country show up at UN meetings on climate change and have conversations with economies and transition, China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and say, well, guys, you need to reduce your emissions. You need to reduce your pollution. Climate change is upon us. What kind of credibility will we have when it's going to become, I mean, it is becoming very clear that we are backsliding on this. So I'll let you go, just two things on that finally before. One is now that you're not going to be at the table, where will your voice be in that conversation?

What are you going to do next? I don't know, honestly, Matt. But we will continue broadly, like the country will continue to hear from you on these issues. I suspect. So, yes. You said that you don't leave with despair. Did you enjoy politics? Politics is about a lot of things. It's about service and sacrifice. It's about compromise. It's about being a public person. And yeah, you used the word despise. There are some people who might despise you, some people who might love you. Did you like it? I loved it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would. It would have been impossible for me to help convince in Montreal in 2022 at a UN meeting, 196 countries to protect 30%

of the planet by 2030 had I not gone into politics. It would have been impossible for me and others, because you never do anything alone in politics, to show for the first time in Canada's history that through public policies, we can fight pollution and have a prosperous economy. In a 2021-2033 period, we were outpacing all of our G7 peers in terms of climate pollution reduction. So we've shown that we can do that. And I'm hopeful that, I mean, we are. climate is not the priority. It used to be not so long ago in Canada. This will change.

A year from now, two years from now, it will become a priority again. Canadians will demand it. And we now know how to do this. I hope we have the chats to talk again in future. In the meantime, I'm really glad to have you here this morning. Thank you.

I would love that. Thank you very much, Matt. Stephen Gilbo, is a former Environment Minister, an outgoing Liberal MP. He was with me in our Toronto studio. You've been listening to the current podcast, My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon.

For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.