The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is an example of pluralism dominating the political process, and colonialist institutionalism silencing the voice of Indigenous communities. Under Justin Trudeau, the Liberal party championed themselves the progressive, environmentally-conscious option in the 2015 federal election. But Trudeau has consistently aligned himself with the wishes of corporate interest groups on the matter of the pipeline expansion. His cabinet approved the expansion twice, first in 2016 and again in 2019, a decision many saw to be an act of betrayal and a dismissal of his party’s campaign promises.



The process of finalizing a major expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, originally founded in 1953 and purchased by Canada in August of 2018, has been a hotbed of controversy. The long legal battle between the Indigenous communities and the Canadian government has been a conflict over the institutional rules of the situation. The pipeline directly exploits and endangers traditional Aboriginal land, and thus an ideological incompatibility emerges out of any negotiation between the two parties. Many Aboriginal communities, such as the Wet’suwet’en Nation, argue to preserve the spiritual, cultural, and social integrity of their own lands. They value a respectful, harmonic relationship with the land on which they live. But in the face of the corporate agenda, which serves only to extract resources from the environment, they are unable to exercise their rights over their territory. 


This systematic oppression is historically institutionalized within the Canadian government. When European settlers first arrived in Canada in 1534, they claimed the land theirs by right of “discovery”, denouncing the Indigenuous peoples already living there to be subjects to their authority. That notion set a precedent for oppressive and unethical treatment of native communities that continues to this day, as it clearly established a colonialist relationship of power. In 1876, the Indian Act was devised for the Canadian government to control and invade upon essential aspects of Indigenous lives and communities. In this act, Indigenous peoples were forced into government-mandated reserves for the Europeans to reside on their land and pillage its natural resources. This political strongarm sent a clear message that natives held little to no legal authority over their homeland. Control can be taken away and the land exploited at the mercy of the federal government. That resonates today with the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion, as the Canadian government encroaches further into native territory. This case study is an example of how over centuries of marginalization, oppressive policies become firmly entrenched and breaking the cycle grows exponentially more difficult. 


On August 30, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal found that Canada had failed to meaningfully consult Indigenous peoples during Phase Three of the consultation process regarding the Trans-Mountain pipeline extension. The court vetoed the project. However, it was successfully approved later in 2019, causing legal action from First Nations representatives. Indigenous groups again sued to prevent the project from going forward by citing a lack of adequate consultation. In this case, the court did not determine these complaints to be legitimate, and the expansion was allowed to continue.


It was a case that directly affected Indigenous reservations, as the pipeline ran through native territory and increased the risk of an oil spill that would heavily pollute the water supply of their reservations. And yet, the court stated that Indigenous peoples cannot effectively veto project proposals - instead, “their concerns can be balanced against competing societal interests.” This is the result of a historically institutionalized push to strip natives of the right to own and manage their own land, a process centuries in the making. 


The concerns being raised by the Indigenous community have implications for the sustainability of the entire nation. The pipeline expansion will deliver short-term profits for the economy, but greenhouse gas emissions and the risks of oil spills and wildfires are contributing to a potential climate catastrophe. Should such a crisis occur, there would be immeasurable damage to the ecosystem as well as a massive economic downturn. Extreme weather events cause billions of dollars in damages, rising sea levels will render some coastal areas unlivable and result in mass relocation, and the agriculture industry will be devastated in the case of droughts or floods. But long-term planning and sustainability are rarely at the forefront of parties in power that are interested in getting re-elected. Regardless of what leaders such as Trudeau will say in the press, their coalition needs short-term success to be able to boast in the coming election season. Few are willing to take the fall economically in the name of climate change prevention - it makes re-election more difficult, and any progress can be easily undone by your successor. 


Public choice theory suggests that self-interested actions from leadership will inevitably result in the wholesale failure of a government. That certainly applies to the case of climate change and the ramifications of ignoring the warning signs. To remedy this, there is an argument for environmentally-conscious rational choice institutionalism - administering further sanctions to prevent the tragedy of the commons that occurs when single-minded politicians exhaust their natural resources. This has long been a stance taken by First Nations peoples. One source of frustration stemming from their communities has been that their involvement in global environmental discussions comes with the notion that Indigenous peoples are simply victims of climate change, rather than actors in the fight for its prevention. This marginalizes the community and narrows the scope of the discussion, making it more difficult to find a feasible solution. Again, this can be attributed to institutionalized biases towards natives both within Canada and on the global stage.


For Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party to defy the Indigenous majority, campaign promises, and environmental sustainability takes significant pressure from outside interest groups. This is the pluralist influence on the approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion. There are two major actors in this situation that hold influence over the Canadian government’s process. Industries are a primary beneficiary of the pipeline expansion, and those with the most resources have the loudest voice in the matter. Kinder Morgan, the Texas-based former parent company of the pipeline, was given $4.5 billion from the Canadian government once they had finalized their commitment to the expansion. Now, the oil sands companies of Alberta are the most powerful of all industrial actors, as they are of great importance to the Albertan and Canadian economies. An expansion of the pipeline allows for a greater growth into global markets - as the American demand for Canadian oil decreases, this creates another avenue for trade, increasing revenues and profits. Thus, several major players in the Albertan petroleum industry advocated for the expansion, including the likes of BP Canada, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil, and Cenovus Energy. 


Provincial governments are the other major influencers towards the federal decision. Alberta is a major proponent of the expansion, as they are estimated to earn $19.4 billion in profit as the majority of the pipeline travels within their borders. Oil is of great importance to the Albertan economy, and Canada depends heavily on revenues from oil. As Alberta Premier Rachel Notley describes it, “Every Canadian benefits from a strong energy sector. But (Alberta) can’t continue to support Canada’s economy, unless Canada supports (Alberta). That means one thing: building a modern and carefully-regulated pipeline to tidewater.” It is important to note that the British Columbia provincial government was in opposition to this project, emphasizing the lack of emergency response preparation and the increased risk of climate change. But their opposition was swept aside and their concerns largely ignored, as the National Energy Board was dismissive in its review of the objections and permitted the project.


Their expansion project is estimated to generate increases of $73 billion in producer revenues and $46 billion in government revenues over the next 20 years, a major economic victory for the Trudeau administration and the oil industry. It benefits the oil sands companies of Alberta, the Alberta provincial government, and the Canadian economy. The exploitation of First Nations reserves has been allowed through the precedent of institutionalized discriminatory policies, and their oppositions have been silenced. Environmental sustainability has been ignored as Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party has opted for short-term economic gain. Pluralism has won out as the influence of corporate and government interest groups persuaded Trudeau to defy his campaign promises of environmentalism and promotion of Indigenous rights and freedoms.