At a time when the federal government is encouraging Canadian financial institutions to invest in nation-building projects, the country’s biggest pension fund keeps investing in fossil fuels and backing away from climate commitments.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board invested at least $7.1 billion in new fossil fuel and pipeline assets between October 2024 and October 2025, pension watchdog Shift estimated in its annual report grading the quality, depth and credibility of climate progress of 11 of Canada’s largest pension managers. The pension fund was also recently in the spotlight for investing about $416 million into Elon Musk’s AI company xAI, which runs the controversial AI chatbot Grok and currently relies heavily on natural gas to power the data centres that support it.

The fund — which manages $777.5 billion in assets on behalf of 22 million Canadians — saw its score drop from a C- to a D this year thanks to the new fossil fuel investments, a quiet walk-back of its net-zero commitments and an apparent abandonment of its commitment to invest $130 billion in “green and transition assets” by the end of the decade.

The investment board has not reported on that $130 billion commitment since 2024, suggesting the fund has abandoned it, said Patrick DeRochie, a senior manager at Shift, in a phone interview with Canada’s National Observer.

The investment board did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

“We know that the government is looking for private capital, for institutional investors, for asset managers to invest in some of these projects of national interest, whether it be clean electricity or whether it be LNG terminals,” DeRochie said.

“It’s very clear that they’re reaching out to these Canadian pension funds to spur interest in these projects. And there’s a real question here for these pension funds about what the world looks like for their members if they choose to invest in fossil fuel expansion.”

The pension fund’s backslide is troubling on its own — but particularly so in the context of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s major projects push and buzz about a possible oil pipeline, DeRochie said.

In an article published in July, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board proudly highlighted its decade of investment in Canada’s largest oil and gas producer, Canadian Natural Resources Limited, and praised its “long-term production stability.”

Then, in September 2025, the board’s CEO John Graham said, “Here in Canada, we like pipelines. We like oil and gas pipelines,” nodding to Wolf Midstream Inc. in Alberta, a private company 99 per cent owned by the investment board, according to reporting by The Financial Post. Most recently, a group of youth launched a lawsuit in which they allege the board is violating its legal obligations to protect their pensions from climate risk.

Other pension funds stepping up

Despite this, there are still bright spots and improvements at other pension funds, DeRochie said.

La Caisse, which manages half a trillion dollars on behalf of Quebeckers, is leading the pack with an A-, in stark contrast to laggards like the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and the Alberta Investment Management Corporation, the latter of which did not mention climate or climate risk in its 2024 annual report and has not put out climate-related financial disclosures since 2023. 

With $496 billion in assets, the Quebec pension fund has divested its oil and coal assets and has an exclusion on any new oil or coal investments. In 2025 it sold its 16.6 per cent ownership stake in Colonial Pipeline.

“[La Caisse has] been consistently saying that their portfolios are performing, that it’s been a good financial decision for them to pull out of those fossil fuels and that their renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure assets are performing quite well,” DeRochie said. 

“It’s really encouraging to see La Caisse stepping up like this in an era when so many institutional investors are either greenwashing, green hushing or backsliding on their climate commitments,” DeRochie said. The pension fund did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

La Caisse and some smaller funds such as Ontario’s University Pension Plan are showing what is possible by “really taking this seriously and acknowledging the urgency and severity of the problem and acting accordingly,” DeRochie said. The Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System moved up a full letter grade.

Broadly, DeRochie said it’s encouraging to see some funds create good climate-related expectations of companies in their portfolio by advocating for better reporting and disclosure, voting with climate in mind and pressuring companies to start handling climate risk. 

La Caisse is not fully divested from fossil fuels, the report noted. Its “achilles heel” is gas: the pension fund has an 80.9 per cent ownership stake in Énergir, the main distributor of fossil gas in Quebec, as well as ownership stakes in companies operating gas pipelines: Transportadora Associada de Gás S.A. and Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline.

Canada Pension Plan an outlier in new investments in oil and gas

With the exception of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s estimated $7.1 billion committed to new fossil fuel assets, there actually are not a lot of new fossil fuel investments from the other big pension funds in the past couple of years, DeRochie noted.

He posited this could be related to the makeup of the board: three of its 10 board members also sit on the boards of fossil fuel companies, which he says raises questions about how they can fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

“How can you have somebody in the boardroom who is committed to climate action at the same time that they’re on the board of a company that wants to expand and prolong the use of gas?” DeRochie said.

There are also politics at play. The Alberta government shook up the Alberta Investment Management Corporation in 2024 by firing the CEO and board and installing former prime minister Stephen Harper at the helm and has clearly expressed desire to withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan.

“I think that, in part, CPP is responding to that threat by appeasing those Alberta interests and showing continued support for an oil and gas industry that’s facing decline,” DeRochie said.

Some pension funds in the middle of the pack pulled back or stayed quiet about climate, which the report terms a “green hushing” problem. The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan was one of the first funds to commit to net zero and come out with a climate strategy but hasn’t updated that strategy in over three years. 

“We’re really perplexed as to why Ontario Teachers, which was an early leader, has kind of started coasting or gone silent and really fallen out of that leadership position,” he said. The teachers’ pension plan declined to comment on the report.

Similarly, the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation and Public Sector Pension Investment Board have no emissions reduction or climate investment targets beyond 2025 and 2026, respectively.

One of the report’s top recommendations to improve their grades is for the funds to just acknowledge the consensus climate science and the need to rapidly phase-out fossil fuels. 

“Obviously, scientists are screaming at the top of their lungs about this, we’re already feeling these impacts, not just in terms of the smoke in our lungs and the evacuation of cities, but the real drag on economic growth, the real destabilization of economic and financial systems because of climate impacts,” DeRochie said. 

“We’re seeing this in real time, yet these funds still can’t acknowledge the problem, which is fossil fuels, and it just seems a little bit shocking to me, because they’re supposed to be independent, they’re supposed to be arms lengths from governments, they’re supposed to have the best financial risk analysis and management out there.”

— With files from John Woodside

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A citizen-led climate justice challenge to the Saskatchewan government’s plan to continue using coal power failed when a court sided with the province last month.

Last summer, the provincial government and SaskPower laid out a plan to continue using coal-fired generation despite federal regulations aimed at phasing out the polluting power source by 2030. Residents and citizen groups responded by filing a judicial challenge, arguing the province’s decision is “unreasonable” and should be reviewed by the courts due to a lack of public consultation, a disregard for Canadian and international law and potential implications on Canadian Charter rights.

A Court of King’s Bench justice sided with the province and dismissed the application on Jan. 12, on the grounds that the court’s role is not to dictate climate policy or direct the day-to-day policy of a government.

The Saskatchewan government said in an emailed statement sent to Canada’s National Observer it is “pleased” with the court’s ruling, which “determined that the issue is essentially one of government policy and, as such, is not for the courts to decide.”

The applicants (the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, Citizens for Public Justice and three individuals from Saskatchewan and Manitoba) say a judicial review is the only means of holding the government to account for its “unprecedented” decision to continue burning coal and ensuring evidence of the government’s decision-making is “justified, transparent, and intelligible,” said Glenn Wright, the lawyer representing the applicants, in a Jan. 16 press release. 

“Saskatchewan has been planning to phase out coal for 15 years, and the coal decision is a marked departure from that long-standing objective. We believe that a near billion-dollar administrative decision to double down on the most polluting form of energy generation — a decision which, we believe, violates the rule of law — is something that the courts can and should review.”

After the lower court disagreed with them, the applicants said they are in discussion with counsel and are considering their options, including a potential appeal of the decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and produces more planet-warming carbon dioxide when burned than either oil or gas. 

The province’s Saskatchewan First Energy Security Strategy and Supply Plan lays out its strategy to use coal as a bridge to nuclear energy but does not contain any cost estimates, just a demand that the federal government pay for 75 per cent of its first nuclear reactor.

It is going to cost the province an estimated $900 million over four years to extend the lives of its coal power plants. 

“The environmental and health risks posed by extending coal use for many more years remain just as serious as ever,” said Margret Asmuss, president of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, in a press release. “Saskatchewan residents deserve responsible, evidence-based energy planning that protects people, communities, the economy and the environment.”

The group noted the $900 million for coal plant refurbishment could — and should — be going to up-and-coming technology and industries such as battery storage and renewables, but instead the province is choosing to delay these opportunities by doubling down on coal. 

Ontario was the first province to phase out coal-fired electricity, under Premier Kathleen Wynne in 2014. Last summer, Alberta transitioned its last coal plant to natural gas to complete the coal phase-out. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan still use coal-fired electricity.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A contentious radioactive waste disposal facility near the Ottawa River is back in court, and the outcome will set an important precedent for Indigenous Rights and consultation. 

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is trying to overturn a federal court’s decision that found Kebaowek First Nation was not properly consulted on a near-surface nuclear waste disposal facility near Chalk River, Ont. This development is the latest in a long saga of court challenges and appeals since the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission greenlit the proposed facility on Jan. 9, 2024. The radioactive waste mound would be situated about a kilometre from the Ottawa River, which is a source of drinking water for millions of people downstream.

The Assembly of First Nations and MPs from the Bloc Québécois, Green Party and NDP pledged their support to Kebaowek First Nation, which is prepared to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

“The Assembly of First Nations will extend our support to the highest levels required in this case,” National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said on the eve of the court date.

The outcome of the appeal “will speak volumes about the future of First Nations rights in this country, and it may prove to be a litmus test for large infrastructure projects being fast-tracked under new federal and provincial laws,” Woodhouse Nepinak said, referring to federal Bill C-5 and similar legislation in B.C. and Ontario.

Kebaowek First Nation appeared in federal court last year and successfully argued that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories — the private contractor responsible for managing the Chalk River nuclear site — did not secure the First Nation’s free, prior and informed consent during the licensing process. In February, Federal Court Justice Julie Blackhawk ruled the consultation process was inadequate because it failed to consider the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), thus making the approval “incorrect.” Blackhawk ordered Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to resume consultations with Kebaowek First Nation, including an order to adapt the process to “address Indigenous Law, knowledge and processes to develop a process that is aimed at reaching an agreement” before Sept. 30, 2026. 

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories argues consultation with Kebaowek was adequate, and the commission did not have to adhere to UNDRIP because it is non-binding. Kebaowek is defending its position that UNDRIP did apply to the commission’s decision and goes even further, arguing the decision to greenlight the project should be thrown out. The hearing took place on Oct. 8, accompanied by a rally nearly 100-strong outside the Federal Court of Appeal.

The project would allow Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to permanently dispose of one million cubic metres of radioactive waste in a shallow mound about 146 kilometres, as the crow flies, northwest of Ottawa. It would offer a solution for disposal of radioactive waste accumulated since the 1940s, as well as waste from future operations. Pikwaganan First Nation is the closest to Chalk River and gave its consent for the project but submitted documents supporting Kebaowek’s arguments on UNDRIP to the court.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP MP Leah Gazan, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet and various BQ MPs, including Sébastien Lemire, showed up to support Kebaowek at a press conference and rally.

The Mining Association of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Association also intervened in the case, siding with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ arguments.

“Through the appeal, CNL is seeking clarification and guidance on how to navigate the changing legal landscape with respect to Indigenous rights and interests,” a spokesperson for Canadian Nuclear Laboratories told Canada’s National Observer in an emailed statement, rehashing a March 21, 2025, press release. “Given that there are few examples of UNDRIP being implemented in Canada and none in the nuclear sector, it is important that CNL clearly understand what is needed to continue our work and mission to responsibly address Canada’s nuclear liabilities.”

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories directed Canada’s National Observer to that online statement when contacted for comment about the ongoing hearing. It says: “CNL remains fully committed to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous nations,” and “strongly believes in the science” behind the waste storage project.

The provincial party Québec Solidaire is supporting Kebaowek, but the Quebec government has avoided taking a stance, said Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond at a press conference in downtown Ottawa on the eve of the appeal hearing.

“It seems that because of the issues around Gentilly [nuclear generating station], that Quebec is complacent in supporting this approach, because ultimately, they need a place for their waste to go and Chalk River affords them a solution,” Haymond said.

“The province of Quebec, earlier this spring and throughout the summer, has secretly allowed radioactive waste from Gentilly-1 to be secretly transported to Chalk River without public notice, without consultation, and along public highways that cross multiple communities,” he said.

Chalk River is home to about 70 per cent of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s legacy nuclear waste and will continue to accumulate more.

A lot of the radioactive waste slated for disposal at the proposed site is currently sitting in trenches at the Chalk River Laboratories, which was standard practice decades ago, but is no longer in line with nuclear waste-management practices. Along with the issue of Indigenous consultation and its permit under federal Species At Risk Act, a chief concern raised in a citizen court challenge is around the waste itself, because different types of radioactive waste have different storage requirements. 

A former employee at Chalk River told Canada’s National Observer a portion of the waste destined for the mound is a “mishmash” of intermediate- and low-level radioactivity because prior to 2000 there were inadequate systems to properly label, characterize, store and track what was produced at Chalk River or shipped there from other labs.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is contracted by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to manage and operate its sites and facilities across the country.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

New research exposes a “deep entanglement” between the fossil fuel industry and those who govern Canada’s biggest pension funds, raising concerns of potential conflicts of interest.

Seven of Canada’s 10 biggest pension funds have at least one board member who also sits on the board of a fossil fuel company, according to research done by ShiftAction, a charitable initiative that works to protect pensions and the climate. Across all 10 pension funds, 80 different directors, trustees, executives and senior staff held or currently hold roles with 76 different fossil fuel companies.

This was disturbing news for 65-year-old Ellen Campbell, a former Alberta government worker who wishes her life savings were not being invested in an industry that is one of the main drivers of climate change and one that regularly acts to block climate policy.

“I’m receiving a pension and I would far prefer that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the destruction of our planet. But at the same time, I don’t know if I have very much control over where and how they invest money,” Campbell, who has been collecting her pension for a decade and now works as an English as a second language teacher said.

She said learning Canada’s largest pension funds share board members with climate-harming fossil fuel companies makes her even more worried about the futures of her children and grandchildren — will they have a livable planet and a good pension?

Canadians’ retirement savings are exposed to unnecessary risk when pension funds remain heavily invested in companies “on the wrong side of the energy transition,” said Adam Scott, co-author of the report and director of ShiftAction.

Canada’s six biggest pension funds have pledged to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) becoming the most recent fund to commit to net-zero. But Scott said these promises are lacklustre: as of March 2021, over $17 billion of CPP’s portfolio was invested in fossil fuels, ShiftAction noted in a press release.

Fossil fuel companies’ bottom lines rely on the continued use of their products — which are a primary cause of climate change, Scott said. ShiftAction does not see a “credible, profitable pathway” for the industry to survive in the energy transition, he added.

Pension funds must act quickly to change how they manage investments in the face of the climate crisis, he said. But they may be less likely to adopt policies to wind down finance for fossil fuels if doing so is seen as undermining “the interests of some of their directors,” he added.

“The best interests of pension beneficiaries are not at all the same as the best interests of the shareholders of a fossil fuel company,” said Scott. “And if you have directors who are legally beholden to both, you have a problem.”

Scott emphasized the report cannot determine whether conflicts of interest are actually occurring but believes “there’s a great potential” given the report’s findings.

“We know … most (pension fund) boards have protocols in place to deal with conflicts of interest… We just don’t know if they’re being applied in this case,” he said, citing a lack of disclosure and transparency.

“We need more information from the funds about how they’re making sure that there is no conflict there.”

Within Parliament, Independent Sen. Rosa Galvez is pushing hard for better transparency from financial institutions. She tabled a new Climate-Aligned Finance Act earlier this year that seeks to address the problem and requires financial institutions to align with Canada’s international climate commitments. The bill, which had its second reading May 5, includes a pathway to ensure directors appointed by governments have climate expertise and are not affiliated with any organization that fails to line up with the country’s climate commitments.

Even if board members don’t have a conflict of interest, they might simply lack expertise on climate risk and not know how to act in the best interest of pension plan members, the report says.

Galvez’s bill has great potential to get pension funds — and the financial sector writ large — on the right track, according to the report.

The senator said the ShiftAction report confirms her pre-existing concerns about conflicts of interest among higher-ups in financial institutions.

“I don’t see how we’re going to walk in the direction of the net-zero 2050 goal that we have set ourselves,” Galvez said. “It’s impossible because people are in conflict situations, they have this fiduciary duty to return investment to the (pension) contributors, but then they have other fiduciary duties if they are also sitting on a fossil fuel board.”

This is akin to a doctor sitting on the boards of a tobacco company and a hospital, said Galvez, pointing to the World Health Organization’s refusal to accept Quebec’s Medicago COVID-19 vaccine because of the company’s ties to Big Tobacco “We wouldn’t accept that.”

Galvez said most workers, herself included, unknowingly contributed to climate change when they put their trust in financial institutions, pension boards and unions. If pension plans don’t divest from fossil fuels and learn to manage climate risk, young people will bear the consequences, she added.

As the world transitions to a low-carbon economy, large pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure will lose their value, and pension funds with a stake in these projects will end up suffering big economic losses, she explained. Young people contributing to these pension funds today and in the coming decades will feel those losses acutely in the latter half of the century.

For many, climate change has or will result in losses of homes, livelihoods and health as extreme weather events occur with greater severity and frequency, she said, and money invested by pension funds on behalf of workers will be partially to blame.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Canada’s financial watchdog says the federal government is “very unlikely” to recoup its $4.5-billion investment in the Trans Mountain pipeline now that the project’s costs have soared by 70 per cent.

On Feb. 18, Trans Mountain Corporation announced the projected cost of the pipeline expansion has risen from $12.6 billion to $21.4 billion. The news release said the COVID-19 pandemic and last year’s floods in B.C.’s Hope, Coquihalla and Fraser Valley areas contributed to increased costs.

Last week, the NDP’s environment and climate change critic Laurel Collins wrote to Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) Yves Giroux requesting an updated cost analysis of the pipeline and expansion project.

“It is crucial that we hear from the PBO again to lay out clearly what a boondoggle this project is,” Collins told Canada’s National Observer.

Even before costs jumped, the project already walked a fine line between profitable and unprofitable, according to a 2020 analysis by the PBO.

Based on the previous cost estimate of $12.6 billion, a startup date of Dec. 31, 2022, and several other factors, the pipeline and expansion project’s net value was $600 million. Now, the completion date has been pushed back to somewhere between July and September 2023, and Giroux told National Observer he is “not hopeful that there will be any profits to be made from that pipeline, at least for the federal government.”

Based on his previous analysis, if construction costs increased by even 10 per cent to $13.9 billion, the project’s present net value would be an $800-million deficit.

“Now that we’re talking about over $20 billion in construction costs, it is clearly non-profitable,” said Giroux.

“It will probably mean losses for Canadian taxpayers whenever the government decides to sell the pipeline to a private-sector entity,” he said, adding this loss is the most likely outcome unless some of his key assumptions change.

For example, if the cost oil producers are charged to use the pipeline “increases dramatically,” the project could come closer to breaking even, but “the long-term contracts that are used for the majority of the capacity of the pipeline do not suggest this will be a possibility in the near future,” he said.

Giroux said from a financial perspective, killing TMX right now would be the worst outcome because it would mean bearing the cost of the money spent so far and forgoing additional revenues from the expansion.

When the cost increase was announced, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said no more public funds will go to the Trans Mountain Corporation and that the Crown corporation that owns the massive oil pipeline will need to secure third-party funding through banks or public debt markets to complete the project. She said the project is “in the national interest and will make Canada and the Canadian economy more sovereign and more resilient.”

Steven Guilbeault says climate action not tied to TMX revenues

Because the pipeline will generate cash flow for decades, it will be able to finance itself on the private market by borrowing from institutional investors, banks or corporations, but the operator will have to borrow at higher rates, so the cost of financing will likely rise, said Giroux.

Former federal environment minister Jonathan Wilkinson, now the natural resources minister, previously told CBC last August that Canada needed to maximize profits from the Trans Mountain expansion in order to fund climate action and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

But Steven Guilbeault, who is now the environment minister, suggested Canada would no longer need these revenues.

“If the only thing we did to fight climate change is use the profit of the sales of the pipeline to invest in cleantech or climate-friendly technologies, I’d be worried. But it’s not,” Guilbeault, referring to measures such as methane regulations, carbon pricing, dedicated funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure and investments in zero-emissions vehicles and chargers.

“What we need to do … going forward (is) reduce more and more our dependency on fossil fuels,” he said. “Does it mean that there will be absolutely no more projects ever built in Canada? That’s not what we’re saying. What we’re saying is that we need to do less and less of those and more and more of the things that will help us reduce our emissions — like cleantech, like transit, like electrification, like renewables.”

According to the Canadian Development and Investment Corporation’s most recent interim report, the federal government has already borrowed and invested well over $14 billion in the project, including the original purchase. The Trans Mountain Corporation will have to secure upwards of $10 billion in funding to meet the revised project cost of $21.4 billion.

Freeland’s office did not respond to National Observer’s request for comment by deadline.

Eugene Kung, a staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, says Freeland’s promise of no more public funds for the project is “a bit of smoke and mirrors” because any debt incurred by a Crown corporation is public debt.

“It’s deceiving to leave the impression that this is not going to cost the Canadian public more, because it will,” he said.

The existing Trans Mountain pipeline carries 300,000 barrels of oil per day and is Canada’s only pipeline system transporting oil from Alberta to the West Coast. The expansion project will essentially twin the existing pipeline, raising daily output to 890,000 barrels.

Ever since the purchase of TMX in 2018, the federal government has justified its decision by saying “every dollar” earned from the pipeline “will be invested in Canada’s clean energy transition.”

Collins said that claim was dubious at best from the get-go given the PBO’s financial assessments of the project and the urgent need to get off fossil fuels and reduce emissions.

Although the cost jump makes clear the federal government won’t reap any great benefits from selling TMX, Giroux said his assessments can’t account for broader impacts like better prices for Canadian oil, which he says could potentially lead to higher taxes for producers and more jobs in the oil sector.

A central rationale of the project is that the expansion would allow Canada to get a fair price for its oil in Asian markets. This claim was challenged by a 2020 study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that found Canadian producers would be taking a loss of US$4 to $6 per barrel if they sold to Asian refineries through TMX compared to selling to U.S. refineries.

Just like the broader economic impacts of the pipeline are hard to calculate, so are the costs of climate change.

A new IPCC report warns humanity is entering an era of irreversible breakdown unless there’s immediate large-scale action to reduce emissions and lays bare the severe costs of climate change for vulnerable communities across the world. More serious climate impacts — like the disastrous wildfires, flooding and heat waves that marked the summer and fall of 2021 — are just a preview of what is to come, according to the report.

Collins said the NDP is calling on the federal government to abandon the TMX pipeline, calling it an “economic and environmental disaster.”

“The people who pay the cost of this are Canadians, it’s our communities,” the Victoria MP said. “The cost is borne both in terms of the dollar spent, but also the cost when it comes to flooding, extreme heat, the impacts on our food systems and the future for our children and our grandchildren.”

Giroux said his office will do a cost analysis “probably in the course of this year” when more detailed financial information becomes available, adding it can’t be done in the immediate future because their work plan is “already quite full.”

— With files from The Canadian Press

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine raises questions about global energy security, Canada’s environment minister is rebuking Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s assertion Canada must “get some pipelines built” to help “defang” Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There is clearly a crisis in Ukraine, just like we’re slowly emerging from the COVID crisis, and there will be other crises in the coming months and years,” Steven Guilbeault told Canada’s National Observer. “But climate change will not go away, and if we’re thinking we can solve the crisis by exacerbating another one, those people who think that are clearly mistaken.”

Since the invasion began, Kenney has tweeted repeatedly about how Canadian oil should replace “dictator oil” in global energy markets and how dead pipeline projects, such as Keystone XL, have helped Russia build wealth to carry out this invasion.

Now if Canada really wants to help defang Putin, then let’s get some pipelines built!Alberta stands ready, willing and able to supply the energy needed to displace Russia from global markets.Message to Ottawa and Washington: stop helping Putin and OPEC by killing pipelines. https://t.co/eVRoDO3eSe

— Jason Kenney (@jkenney) February 27, 2022

“The solution to global energy problems is not to increase our dependency on fossil fuels,” said Guilbeault. The best way to improve the energy security of European countries is to simply reduce dependence on oil and gas “regardless of where it’s coming from,” he said.

Even if Canada could build more pipelines to increase oil and gas capacity, this would take “a number of years” and wouldn’t address the crisis people in Ukraine and Europe are now facing, he added.

The real solution, he says, is to “quickly deploy renewables and cleantech” to reduce dependence on Russian oil and gas.

To increase pressure on Putin, Canada will ban imports of crude oil from Russia, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson announced on Monday.

In a news release, Wilkinson noted Canada’s last import of Russian crude oil was in 2019, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.

Because Canada’s imports of Russian crude oil are negligible, the ban is “largely symbolic” and its real importance will be whether it pressures other countries to follow suit, said Kathryn Harrison, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia.

Unlike Canada, Europe relies on Russia for nearly 40 per cent of its gas and over a quarter of its crude oil, leaving both Europe and Russia vulnerable to import and export restrictions, said Harrison. For Russia to turn off the taps in response to the West’s financial sanctions “would truly be an act of desperation” and unlikely, she said.

In question period on Monday, Conservative MPs echoed Kenney’s assertions, including MP Michael Chong, who said Canada can help “European democracies by replacing Russian gas with Canadian natural gas” and called on the government to “commit to fixing our broken pipeline approval process.”

This notion that Europe will want to replace Russian oil and gas with fossil fuels from elsewhere “is not a slam dunk,” said Harrison, who noted Europe had plans to get off Russian oil and gas before Ukraine was invaded.

If Europe does face a gas shortage, immediate solutions are needed and costly investments for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and similar projects will take years to get approved and built, she added.

“Making investments in new fossil fuel facilities that won’t be built in the time they need and then will be white elephants as the continent shifts away from fossil fuels is not an obvious solution for Europe,” said Harrison, referring to the European Union’s pledge to reduce emissions 55 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Instead of Canadian oil and gas coming to Europe’s rescue, she predicts short-term solutions like turning down thermostats to conserve energy since a majority of Russian gas imported to Europe is used to heat homes and buildings.

Harrison said the most obvious solution is to shift to renewable energy as it is “arguably quicker to deploy than building new terminals or new pipelines.”

Last week, Germany halted the certification of a natural gas pipeline that would transport gas from Russia to the EU.

Shortly after, on Feb. 28, Reuters reported Germany aims to speed up its wind and solar energy projects to reduce the country’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels.

In the short term, countries like Germany may burn more coal as a stop-gap for renewables, said Harrison.

Another option is to extend the operation of nuclear power plants that have been scheduled for closure, she said.

On Sunday, Germany’s economy and climate minister, Robert Habeck, floated the idea of extending the lifespans of coal and nuclear plants. Although it is unlikely Germany will extend the life of its two remaining nuclear plants, the fact Habeck, a member of the steadfastly anti-nuclear Green Party, did not rule out this possibility shows Europeans are thinking long and hard about alternatives rather than rushing to buy fossil fuels from elsewhere, said Harrison.

Ultimately, the idea that Canadian oil and gas can rescue Europe from its dependence on Russia is not as feasible as Kenney and many Conservative MPs would have us believe, said Harrison.

She says there is no market analysis to suggest the rest of the world wants Canada’s oil, particularly because Canada’s heavy oil requires more energy to refine than the “abundance of lighter sources.”

Along with Kenney’s many tweets pushing for pipelines, Chong and Conservative MPs Marilyn Gladu, Greg McLean, Gérard Deltell and interim leader Candice Bergen echoed this sentiment in the House of Commons.

McLean claimed Canada “sends $500 million per year to Russia to import their oil” and chose to “fund the oppressive regime in Russia” instead of approving Canadian pipelines.

It’s no secret the federal government bought the Trans Mountain pipeline in 2018 and Wilkinson told two MPs their claims the government spends hundreds of millions on Russian oil are incorrect before repeating that the last Russian import was in 2019.

The only winner when the Liberals block Canadian oil and gas is Russia. pic.twitter.com/oMi7H38cLp

— Candice Bergen Harris (@CandiceBergen_) February 28, 2022

These types of statements “misdiagnose the energy security challenges and seem blind to the escalating climate emergency,” George Hoberg, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy, told Canada’s National Observer in an email.

It’s imperative to keep the climate crisis front and centre when considering the energy implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Hoberg wrote.

“The same day that Russian cruise missiles were slamming into Freedom Square, the IPCC released its latest alarming report on the impacts of climate change,” he said. “From the climate emergency perspective, the notion of increasing Canadian oil production is clearly a non-starter.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.