This post appeared as an op ed in Saint John Telegraph Journal on November 6th, 2015.

Prime Minister Trudeau will have many pressing challenges facing his new administration, among them will be rehabilitating Canada’s reputation on climate change without alienating any of Canada’s regional interests.  How effectively he does that will be an early test of his leadership.

Trudeau must walk a fine line between the many economic spinoffs that come from producing fossil-fuel-based energy and the very real need to develop a sustainable economy (including one powered by more renewable energy) while repairing Canada’s damaged environmental reputation.

Canada’s position going into the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris next month has been developed by the outgoing Harper government. Trudeau will have little time to place his new government’s imprint on an updated Canadian stance. It is unlikely, however, that the new government will over-promise given our experience with the overly optimistic goals of Kyoto in 1992.

In any event, improving on Canada’s reputation will not be difficult given the very low bar set by Mr. Harper. The outgoing Conservative government’s approach to climate and energy policy was to do as little as possible.

Under the Harper government, Canada’s public interest has been ill-defined, but was more or less synonymous with the commercial interests of the oil and gas sector. The federal election results demonstrated a growing impatience with this at least outside Canada’s oil producing regions.

With Mr. Trudeau’s landslide, Canada can now emerge from a decade where federal environmental oversight and regulation were diminished and in the eyes of the public, the lines between public and corporate interest were blurred. This has been corrosive to the social license developers should strive for and without which projects can bog down in protest and litigation. It’s not surprising, then, that during Mr. Harper’s tenure not a single new Canadian interprovincial pipeline has been built while Canada’s reputation suffered at home and abroad.

Canada’s position in Paris will likely signal a new way of doing business here. Energy infrastructure projects like Energy East, that have received enthusiastic political support well before regulatory approval, have turned the federal review process upside down and undermined public confidence in the government’s ability to effectively regulate development. The election of a majority government with a broad electoral base can change this dynamic.

The oil and gas sector will understand that the road to public support for their industry is through strengthened regulation, oversight, and environmental performance. Industry would be well advised to focus on the overlap between their near term commercial interests and Canada’s long term public interest when preparing to bring their case to the new government.

The dysfunction of the Harper years needs urgent attention and the first agenda item, a climate deal, will set the stage for renewed domestic energy policy development. The Liberal Party’s election platform committed to:

“attending the Paris climate conference, and within 90 days, holding a First Ministers meeting to work together on a framework for combatting climate change. Central to this would be the creation of national emissions reduction targets.”

Candidate Trudeau has created an interesting challenge for Prime Minister Trudeau. He has acknowledged that national emissions targets will be necessary. On the other hand he has created a Gordian knot with a commitment that those targets will be achieved by “working together” with the provinces.

Provincial Premiers responsible for managing their economic development understand all too well that growth traditionally means more emissions. That is particularly true when development is in energy intensive industries like Canada’s oil sands.

Responsibility for regulating oil and gas production and resource development in Canada generally rests with the provinces. The responsibility for establishing national goals and meeting international commitments rests with the Prime Minister of Canada and his government.

While resolving those sometimes conflicting interests is a test of leadership, the process can be helped considerably if it builds upon a well thought out national energy policy. Unfortunately few politicians in Canada have the courage to revisit a national energy policy, which is a pity.

Perhaps Mr. Trudeau will be the exception and while avoiding the pitfalls of his father’s National Energy Program, he can also avoid the train wreck that is bound to occur if the provinces are left without effective federal leadership to sort out Canada’s climate change commitments and their impact on the economic, social, and environmental wellbeing of our country.

There are many models of collaboration. One of the most productive was developed here in Atlantic Canada. That was the Atlantic Energy Roundtable. Mr. Trudeau’s government should take a close look at what it achieved and begin the process of getting us to permanent solutions.