This paper traces the evolution of Canada's federal climate change policy from its early leadership role in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change through the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol under Prime Minister Chrétien, and into the policy retreat of the Harper Conservative minority governments. It examines how domestic political pressures, provincial tensions, business lobbying, and economic dependence on the Alberta oil sands have shaped Canada's international stance on climate change. The paper also considers the consequences of aligning Canadian policy with the United States and the resulting decline in Canada's global reputation as a climate change leader, concluding with an assessment of future prospects.
The paper demonstrates competent use of comparative policy analysis across government administrations. By contrasting the Chrétien/Martin Liberal approach with the Harper Conservative approach, the author shows how changes in political ideology translate directly into shifts in international commitments and foreign policy standing — a technique central to public policy research.
The essay opens with a framing introduction tied to a federal election context, then dedicates two substantive sections to the Kyoto era — covering Canada's UNFCCC participation and the ratification process. A third section addresses post-Kyoto Conservative policy, followed by a section on economic and political drivers of inaction. The conclusion synthesizes the arc and projects likely future trajectories. This five-part structure is straightforward and appropriate for an undergraduate policy essay of this length.
With an upcoming federal election, Canadians have the opportunity to set a course for their government's response to climate change. Over the past several years, it has become evident that the direction of climate change policy in Canada shifts dramatically depending on the composition of Parliament. Under the Chrétien and Martin Liberal governments, the Kyoto Protocol provided the framework for climate change policy, but that emphasis shifted considerably under the successive Harper minority governments. This essay outlines the form and nature of these policy shifts, providing historical perspective on Canada's climate change policy debate, with a particular focus on its foreign policy dimensions.
For most of the period of climate change policy debate in Canada, the nation has been an active participant in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC was designed with the objective of setting international and domestic policies on climate change. In the early stages of the UNFCCC, Canada was seen as an early leader on the issue and as a key bridge between the economic "North" and "South." Canada took a particularly prominent role in the Earth Summit. However, the country's engagement waned during the middle part of the decade, in part due to increased industry involvement in setting climate change policy (Runnalls, n.d.). That early leadership phase had won Canada a strong international reputation at a time when it had considerable flexibility in designing climate change policy; the involvement of the business lobby changed that, and the country entered a new era of inconsistent climate change policy. While Chrétien ultimately signed Canada into Kyoto with stricter-than-expected commitments, the nation's policy seemed to waver through the mid- to late-1990s (Smith, 1998).
The most important of these international agreements is the Kyoto Protocol. When Canada signed the Protocol, the government committed to policies stipulating the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. For the most part, Canada negotiated its own targets. Canada's commitments were considered binding, but came with no enforcement mechanisms attached (Williams, 2009).
Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol came in 2002, before the agreement was ratified by the requisite number of nations. Canada was the only nation in the Americas to agree to specific greenhouse gas reduction targets (Williams, 2009). Then-Prime Minister Chrétien heralded the agreement as a major step for Canada, and it became one of the defining elements of his legacy (Kukucha, 2005). Canada's ratification was viewed favorably by European nations, and the country was seen as a leader in taking action on climate change. This represented a shift in international opinion — during the 1990s, Canada had been criticized for its perceived indifference toward an international climate change agreement (Rabe, 2007).
The ratification and the setting of more challenging targets than was likely necessary may have bought Canada goodwill with Europe and other major Kyoto proponents, but did little to improve relations between the federal government and the provinces, many of which were dismayed by the new targets (Runnalls & Nijam, n.d.). Many provinces — especially Alberta — decried what they perceived as a lack of provincial input into the negotiation process (MacDonald & Smith, 2000). Rabe (2007) argues that domestic policy did not match Canada's international commitments, and Runnalls (n.d.) points out that Canada quickly fell behind its commitment targets even before Kyoto was ratified. Climate change was politically popular at this point and was credited with helping the Liberals win the 2003 election (Runnalls, n.d.). As a result of Chrétien's enthusiastic adoption of Kyoto, Canada regained the moral high ground in North America on the issue of climate change (Rabe, 2007).
Despite the relative popularity of the Kyoto Protocol among Canadians — at least in principle — there were continued signs through this period that domestic policies would not be sufficient for the nation to meet its commitments. In 1997, for example, a meeting of federal and provincial officials yielded commitments below those being discussed for Kyoto at the time (Smith, 1998). When Chrétien demanded stronger commitments several years later, the negative reaction from provincial officials — who had not even committed to the initial Kyoto targets — was predictable.
Canada's climate change policy — and with it its influence in foreign policy development on the issue — has undergone several distinct stages. During the early period of international policy debate, Canada took a leading role and earned a strong international reputation as a result. When the nation wavered, its reputation began to be associated with that of the typically intransigent United States. Canada's standing was restored with the ratification of Kyoto, only to be undermined by the lack of strong domestic policies to match its international rhetoric. The subsequent years of Conservative minority governments saw Canada become, with a few exceptions, an increasingly irrelevant player in the foreign policy arena on climate change — a situation arising primarily from political choice. This reduction in the government's willingness to engage carries additional risks beyond climate policy, including a decline in Canada's broader relevance in international policy discussions.
The lack of leadership at the federal level largely inspired a corresponding absence of leadership at the provincial level. While larger provinces have passed laws allowing cap-and-trade systems (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010), the subnational legal infrastructure for climate change remains generally underdeveloped in Canada compared with the United States (Rabe, 2007). Canada's lack of leadership resulted from an attrition of talent and initiative at the provincial level (Rabe, 2007) and from the tone of federal-provincial dialogue on climate change established during the Chrétien years.
The current state of climate change policy is relatively poor, and there is little evidence of meaningful progress compared with a decade earlier. The country faces a lack of leadership on the issue: targets are set, but the changes necessary to achieve them are not implemented. The issue does not appear to capture the imagination of voters, which further contributes to political apathy. An upcoming federal election does provide an opportunity for voters to shift priorities, and that could change the course of Canadian climate change policy — including Canada's role on the world stage. Canada has existing commitments, and if it adheres to them, it can potentially regain global leadership on the issue. However, the most likely trajectory for the near future is a continuation of the preceding five years, resulting in a further decline in Canada's relevance to the setting of global climate change policy.
Drexhage, J. & Murphy, D. (2010). Climate change and foreign policy in Canada: Intersection and influence. Canadian International Council.
Kukucha, C. (2005). From Kyoto to the WTO: Evaluating the constitutional legacy of the provinces in Canadian foreign trade and environmental policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 38, 129–152.
MacDonald, D. & Smith, H. (2000). Promises made, promises broken: Questioning Canada's commitment to climate change. International Journal, 55(1), 107–124.
Rabe, B. (2007). Beyond Kyoto: Climate change policy in multilevel governance systems. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 20(3), 423–444.
Runnalls, D. & Nijam, A. (n.d.). Canada and climate change politics.
Smith, H. (1998). The provinces and Canadian climate change policy. Opinions Politiques, Mai 1998, 28–30.
Williams, T. (2009). The climate change convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Library of Parliament.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.