Home » Environment

Canada’s Climate Emergency Declaration and Pipeline Approval: Policy Contradictions and Environmental Implications

Canada’s climate emergency declaration contrasts with pipeline expansion, fueling debate over national policy coherence.

By Sneha Tete, Integrated MA, Certified Relationship Coach

Created on Sep 27, 2025

Canada’s climate emergency declaration contrasts with pipeline expansion, fueling debate over national policy coherence.

In June 2019, Canada found itself at the center of intense national and international scrutiny when the federal government declared a national climate emergency—only to approve the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline the following day. This juxtaposition has sparked significant debate regarding the country’s commitment to environmental protection and highlighted perceived contradictions in its climate change policy. This article examines the politics behind these decisions, explores public and political reactions, and analyzes the broader environmental and economic implications for Canada and beyond.

Background: Canada’s Declaration of a National Climate Emergency

On June 17, 2019, Canada’s House of Commons voted to declare a national climate emergency. The non-binding motion recognized climate change as a ‘real and urgent crisis’ that demands effective, science-based action to limit climate warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Key aspects of the declaration included:

Affirming the need to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to net-zero by 2050
Recognizing the risks climate change poses to Canadians—such as wildfires, floods, and heatwaves
Framing climate change as both a national and international priority
Calling on the government to meet Paris Agreement commitments

The declaration was widely seen as a symbolic assertion of Canada’s environmental values and a public commitment to addressing the global climate crisis. Environmental groups and many lawmakers lauded it as overdue but crucial, particularly given Canada’s history as one of the world’s top per-capita emitters.

The Approval of Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion

Less than 24 hours after passing the climate emergency motion, the federal Liberal government approved the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX). The project was designed to triple the pipeline’s capacity, transporting oil from Alberta’s tar sands to the port of Burnaby, British Columbia, primarily for export. The approval entailed:

An investment of billions of dollars of public funds
Commitment to stringent safety and environmental mitigation measures along the pipeline route
Promises that all profits from the pipeline would be reinvested in Canada’s clean energy transition

The government justified the expansion as necessary for economic growth, affirming it was compatible with Canada’s climate goals given the additional climate policies and regulatory frameworks in place. Nonetheless, this move was met with widespread criticism and accusations of hypocrisy.

The Rationale Behind the Decision

Several arguments were used to defend the pipeline approval:

Economic growth: The new pipeline would secure jobs across Western Canada and boost government revenue.
Market diversification: It would allow Canadian oil to reach overseas markets, reducing dependence on U.S. buyers.
Transition funding: Profits from fossil fuel transport could fund clean energy and climate adaptation initiatives.
Regulatory stringency: The approval process was updated to incorporate more robust Indigenous consultation and environmental assessments.

Reaction and Controversy

The perceived contradiction between declaring a climate emergency and investing in oil infrastructure triggered fierce reactions from across the political spectrum, Indigenous leaders, environmentalists, provinces, and international observers.

Environmental Groups

Environmental organizations described the government’s decisions as mutually exclusive. Key criticisms include:

Emphasizing that building new fossil fuel infrastructure locks in emissions for decades, making Paris climate goals unattainable
Arguing that expanded oil production sabotages Canada’s credibility as a climate leader
Highlighting risks of oil spills on land and water, and impacts on sensitive ecosystems and wildlife

Political Parties

Party	Stance on Climate Emergency	Stance on Pipeline
Liberal Party	Supportive	Supportive (with conditions)
Conservative Party	Generally opposed	Supportive (more strongly)
New Democratic Party (NDP)	Supportive	Opposed
Green Party	Supportive	Opposed

The table highlights the deep political divisions: while some parties endorsed both the emergency declaration and the pipeline for pragmatic reasons, others saw the two decisions as fundamentally incompatible.

Indigenous Peoples

Many Indigenous nations and organizations strongly opposed the pipeline on grounds that it violated their rights and posed unacceptable environmental risks. Others, seeking economic partnership opportunities, favored the project. Notable points include:

Lack of meaningful consultation with all affected Indigenous communities
Interference with traditional lands and water sources
Concerns regarding treaty rights and lack of consent from some First Nations
Economic participation frameworks for Indigenous groups interested in benefiting from the pipeline

Public Response

Nationwide protests, viral campaigns, and heated parliamentary debates ensued after the announcement. Many Canadians expressed confusion and frustration over what they saw as ‘having it both ways.’ Rallies took place in support of both climate action and pipeline construction, reflecting deep national divisions about priorities and values.

Climate Change in Canada: Policy and Reality

The dual nature of Canada’s climate and energy policy is not new. The country is often described as balancing on a “knife-edge” between climate leadership and resource dependency. As one of the largest oil producers globally, Canada also positions itself as a committed actor in the global climate fight.

Climate Impacts

Canada is warming at twice the global average rate, and the Arctic region is warming at nearly three times that rate .
Increasing frequency of extreme weather events: floods in Quebec, devastating wildfires in Alberta, and record-breaking heatwaves threatening public safety.
Impacts on Indigenous and remote communities, agriculture, and vulnerable ecosystems.

Key Climate Commitments

Paris Agreement: Canada pledged to cut GHG emissions 40–45% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Net zero by 2050: Legally binding through the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act .
National Adaptation Strategy: Investment in climate resilience for infrastructure, public health, and the environment .
Climate Change Strategies: Multiple action plans involving federal, provincial, and Indigenous governments, emphasizing clean energy and emission reductions .

The Pipeline Paradox: Economic Growth Versus Environmental Urgency

The Trans Mountain expansion captures a fundamental conflict in climate governance: reliance on fossil fuel revenues versus the imperative to decarbonize. While government leaders argue that revenue from this project will help fund the low-carbon transition, critics describe this as a “false compromise.”

Economic Arguments

Job Creation: Thousands of jobs are promised during the construction phase, with long-term employment opportunities in oil transport and associated sectors.
Revenue Generation: The pipeline is projected to generate government revenues for social programs and investment in renewable energy.
Market Diversification: Reducing dependence on U.S. markets, potentially securing better prices for Canadian oil.

Environmental Trade-Offs

GHG Emissions: Increased oil sands production driven by pipeline capacity expansion conflicts with Canada’s GHG reduction targets.
Ecological Risks: Threat to waterways and marine environments, including endangered species such as the southern resident killer whale.
Long-Term Liability: New infrastructure may become obsolete or stranded as global demand for oil decreases in line with climate goals.

Legal and Policy Developments Post-2019

Since these controversial decisions, Canada has taken further steps to strengthen its climate governance framework:

Passing the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act in 2021, requiring public reporting and legal accountability for emissions targets
Introducing the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, a sector-by-sector roadmap for emissions cuts, with a focus on oil and gas
Developing a National Adaptation Strategy to build resilience against inevitable climate impacts
Increasing investments in clean energy, circular economy initiatives, and plastic waste reduction

Despite these advances, critics argue that approval of major fossil fuel infrastructure projects places Canada on a slower and more difficult path to achieving these goals.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: How can Canada declare a climate emergency and approve oil pipelines simultaneously?

A: The Canadian government asserts that economic growth and climate action are not mutually exclusive, arguing that pipeline revenues will fund clean energy solutions. Critics, however, point to the inherent contradiction in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure while committing to urgent emissions reductions.

Q: What is the Trans Mountain pipeline and why is it controversial?

A: The Trans Mountain pipeline is a major oil transport project, moving crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast for export. Expansion plans have drawn protests due to environmental risks, Indigenous rights violations, and apparent incompatibility with Canada’s climate commitments.

Q: What are Canada’s current climate policies?

A: Canada is legally bound to cut emissions 40–45% by 2030 (below 2005 levels), achieve net-zero by 2050, and invest in climate adaptation and resilience through federal plans like the National Adaptation Strategy .

Q: How have Indigenous communities responded to the pipeline?

A: Responses are divided. Some Indigenous groups oppose the pipeline due to environmental, cultural, and sovereignty concerns; others support it for potential economic opportunities, provided their rights are respected.

Q: What are the global implications of Canada’s climate and energy policy?

A: Canada’s conflicting actions mirror broader international tensions where resource-dependent economies struggle to meet climate obligations. Canada’s choices are seen as a litmus test for real, accountable climate leadership in developed, high-emitting nations.

Conclusion: The Search for Policy Coherence

Canada’s declaration of a national climate emergency, juxtaposed with support for oil pipeline expansion, encapsulates the tensions at the heart of climate policy in resource-rich countries. While the government maintains that it can use fossil fuel wealth as a bridge to a clean energy future, public confidence and policy credibility remain in question. As climate impacts intensify and global scrutiny mounts, Canada’s path demonstrates both the challenges and urgency of true climate leadership—balancing economic legacy with environmental responsibility.

References

Author

Sneha TeteBeauty & Lifestyle Writer

Sneha is a relationships and lifestyle writer with a strong foundation in applied linguistics and certified training in relationship coaching. She brings over five years of writing experience to thebridalbox, crafting thoughtful, research-driven content that empowers readers to build healthier relationships, boost emotional well-being, and embrace holistic living.

Read full bio of Sneha Tete