Catherine McKenna on Her Blistering Climate Op-Ed

It’s Monday morning and Catherine McKenna has a busy day ahead.

The former federal cabinet minister is about to launch a Canadian chapter of Women Leading on Climate, part of a global network to push governments and businesses on environmental action. She also has lots to say about the collapse of Canada’s carbon tax, greenwashing by the oil and gas industry and why we can’t separate environmental policy from good economics.

“I’m going on a rant,” she says, stopping to take a breath. “I had a lot of coffee this morning.”

McKenna, 53, has approached her career with a similar energy. She spent her early years as a lawyer doing international trade and United Nations peacekeeping work in Indonesia and East Timor.

In 2015, she was elected as the Liberal member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre. McKenna was appointed to the climate file and, weeks later, was at COP 21 leading negotiations on the Paris Agreement, an international treaty aimed at tackling climate change.

Her time in government, which ended when she decided not to seek re-election in 2021, was marked with highs and lows. She points to implementing the Impact Assessment Act, working with Indigenous nations on land protection, and federal government subsidies for electric vehicles as a few of the wins.

Her government also implemented carbon pricing. Better known as the carbon tax, it puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions. But the initiative is expected to be nixed after this year’s federal election, something McKenna describes as an “own goal” by the Liberal government — McKenna says they failed to adequately communicate its benefits.

And, of course, her government bought a pipeline.

Buying Trans Mountain was a decision McKenna originally “rationalized” but would later come to regret, she wrote in a recent opinion piece for the Toronto Star. The column laid bare her efforts to create meaningful environmental policies from inside government — and why those efforts sometimes failed.

“It was only after I left politics that I came to understand the truth: The oilsands sector and the politicians they sponsor aren’t just greenwashing a product. They are working to brainwash Canadians into buying a version of reality that no longer exists,” McKenna wrote.

Today, McKenna runs a company called Climate and Nature Solutions, which advises foundations and business clients on improving climate policies. She chairs the High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, an initiative launched by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in 2022. She also works with several international universities, such as the London School of Economics and Political Science and the University of California, Los Angeles.

During our half-hour call, she even hinted she had a book in progress.

The Tyee reached out to McKenna to discuss her Toronto Star op-ed and experience in the backrooms of Canadian Parliament. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

The Tyee: Those of us observing politics from the outside often wonder about the disconnect between political intention and political action. Was there a moment that sparked your decision to write about your experiences?

Catherine McKenna: I thought it was really important to be clear on what we were trying to achieve when I was minister. My goal was to work with oil and gas. When we came in as a government, I wasn't an environmentalist. I cared about the environment, but I wasn't an expert.

When we went to the pre-COP meetings, everyone thought, “Is Canada even serious? You have the oilsands.” Then I went to the actual COP. Alberta had announced this climate plan. It was supported by oilsands companies. It was supported by environmentalists and by Indigenous leaders. It was a serious plan. It had everything from having a price on pollution to a cap on emissions to methane regulations.

The goal, originally, was to work with oil and gas, because oil and gas from the oilsands is amongst the dirtiest in the world and the most expensive.

But the oil and gas industry was never a real partner. This was, I think, all a game. I really went with the best of intentions thinking that we can all do this together. Of course, oil and gas needs to be part of the solution, but it became pretty clear that they weren't. They were trying to oppose absolutely everything.

Post being a minister, when I was doing the work for the UN secretary-general on greenwashing, it was pretty clear the biggest greenwashers were actually Canada's oilsands. They were talking about net zero [but] fighting every policy. Their emissions continued to go up while they made record profits, which they returned to shareholders outside of Canada. A lot of that money could have been invested in new solutions. We didn't see the benefits of that. Then they demanded subsidies while we had subsidized a pipeline with massive overruns.

Canadians are in an affordability crisis and a large part of the affordability crisis is the high cost of heating oil and gas charged by oil and gas companies, while they are also fighting carbon pricing and trying to put the blame on that. It's bonkers. I felt like we needed to clear the air on this.

Your op-ed is quite blunt in saying “the oilsands companies are taking us for fools.” I'm curious if you got any response from the industry?

No, nobody reached out.

As soon as greenwashing provisions were passed in the Competition Act, [oil and gas industry advocacy group Pathways Alliance] scrubbed their website.

Truth in advertising isn't unfair. That's what Canadians expect.

Your op-ed describes buying Trans Mountain as a “bitter pill.” But you also accomplished a lot during your time as environment minister. Are there certain accomplishments that stand out to you?

I think the biggest accomplishment was getting a climate plan that largely was supported.

[Pollution] pricing was an accomplishment, but it is very difficult to keep [pollution] pricing. We made a lot of progress. We even won in the Supreme Court. We won an election over it. But you have to defend it all the time, because every year the price goes up. You also can't do things that are against it. The pause on heating oil was absurd, because it politicized an issue that we had tried so hard to not make political. I had spent a lot of time with conservative former politicians because I was like, “OK, we'll just take the most conservative approach, which is putting a price on pollution, and we'll do it in the most conservative way by giving all the money back in a transparent way.” I think that was a win.

It's disappointing that there were a number of mistakes made, including by our government. I was told we could not advertise [about how carbon pricing works] because that was too political. I pushed back hard. I said, “We're actually advertising what people are entitled to.” But we decided not to advertise.

There were a lot of mistakes made and then, to be honest, environmentalists didn't defend it as much as they should have. We needed help. We couldn't even advertise. But once you do one policy, everyone's pushing you to do the next one, and you need to continue fighting.

The problem is, you’ve got to fight for each policy and then you always have to be vigilant that how they're implemented is actually rigorous enough. The reality is that our output-based pricing system is not tough enough on heavy emitters, in particular oil and gas. The whole point is to have a price that gives them the incentive to actually reduce their emissions.

I think we did a lot, but on climate, that only gets you so much. You have to get reductions. That's the hardest thing in Canada, because we have one sector that really is by far the largest emitter and they aren't doing the work.

In the end, if we do not have oil and gas actually delivering, and in particular the oilsands, then we will never meet a target.

I’m curious how you feel about the current political landscape. We’ve had Alberta’s premier and Pierre Poilievre, even the NDP here in B.C., talking about building pipelines and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure in response to threatened U.S. tariffs. What do you think is the best way forward?

I have been one of the strongest advocates for making sure we have a “Team Canada” approach and we're extremely focused and disciplined on our now-existential threat of tariffs with the United States. But that doesn't mean you throw basic economics out the window.

I'll give you an example. I approved an LNG project many, many years ago that didn't go ahead. Why did it not go ahead? Because of the market. We have to be very clear-eyed. We also need to be projecting 10 years out. I'm wondering, are people actually looking at the [International Energy Agency] projections?

The reality is, largely because of massive scaling of EVs by China, we’re moving past peak fossil fuels. The reality is, once again, we are the most expensive and the dirtiest. When people have to make choices, that's going to be a factor. Everything doesn't get thrown out the window, like basic economics, because of our situation with the United States.

We already have the possibility of massive stranded assets and unfunded liabilities and a pipeline that has now, apparently, $20 billion more invested. This is bonkers.

I'm not even talking about the environmental arguments. I'm actually just talking about the economic arguments. You’d better be making sure this is the absolute best use of very limited taxpayer dollars, which I cannot say in the context of [the Trans Mountain pipeline]. That's not how our economy normally works, where government de-risks and all the profits go to the private company.

I was part of the government that approved it. It was very hard, but I understood, “OK, we need to get a better price for this product and get it to other markets.” I certainly didn't know that we were going to be spending this much taxpayer dollars. Just from a pure economics perspective and a Canadian taxpayer perspective, I find it infuriating.

Speaking of economics, you've also endorsed Mark Carney as the next Liberal leader. You said that “he understands the economy and the environment.” What makes you confident that he would take climate action seriously?

Some people on the right still think that the environment is some “woke” issue or this is something nice to do. No! It is something that we need to do — and we need to also make sure that we're competitive in what is inevitably a clean future — because it actually just makes economic sense.

Mark has been out there on this for a very long time. He has a very good understanding about economy and climate together. We need someone who can defend our interests, and he's extremely well placed, because he absolutely understands the Canadian economy as former governor of the Bank of Canada. He had to deal with something extremely disruptive at the Bank of England, Brexit. We're going to need all our friends and allies. This isn't just climate. I just think he's best placed, and in particular at this moment where it really is existential.

We need someone who is serious, so I support him for Liberal leader. [And especially in comparison] to Pierre Poilievre, who is a professional politician. [Poilievre] has absolutely zero experience in the real economy. He doesn't have to worry about making a living because he's got a massive pension.

I come from Hamilton. Imagine how devastating this is, the announcement of tariffs on the steel and aluminum sector. This is really devastating. This isn't a joke. We need an adult. Our sovereignty is at issue. This is people's jobs. This is actually really worrying, and it also means that all bets aren't off on climate. Mark is not going to do things that don't make economic sense.

I think he can attract a lot of support across the spectrum. That's important too, because we do need to bring Canadians together.