Rarely does a major Canadian federal political news story emerge from the Central Okanagan—yet this week, that's exactly what's happening. This story is particularly significant given Canada's position as a major energy exporter, with 97% of our crude oil exports in 2023, going to a single market: the United States.
The story unfolded last week when Liberal Party leadership frontrunner Mark Carney visited Kelowna, BC on February 12th to meet with local Liberals and campaign for their support in replacing Justin Trudeau as party leader.
During a meeting with local Liberals, Mr. Carney delivered a speech—a common occurrence at political rallies. In his address, he made a bold promise: "Something that my government will do is use all of the powers of the federal government, including the emergency powers of the federal government to accelerate the major projects that we need."
In my view, this statement reveals how the Liberal government's energy agenda—including Bill C-69 (dubbed the "no new pipelines" bill) and Bill C-48 (the tanker ban for BC's Pacific Northwest coast)—has made national energy projects so complex that a candidate for Prime Minister must resort to citing unnamed "emergency powers" as the only path forward.
The concerns over Mr. Carney's comments also reached the Province of Quebec where just 5 days later on February 17, a Quebec based journalist asked Mr. Carney if he was going to "impose a pipeline" on Quebec.
The answer from Mr. Carney this time changed significantly with Mr. Carney stating that: "I would never impose (a pipeline) on Quebec,".
This contradiction raises a serious question given that Mr. Carney has also said: "We as a nation need to build some new pipelines for conventional energy,"
As anyone following Canadian federal politics over the past few decades knows, the previous Conservative government supported and approved new pipelines to diversify and expand our economic interests internationally and reduce dependence on the United States.
Conversely, the Trudeau Liberal government cancelled the previously National Energy Board-approved Northern Gateway pipeline—which would have diversified our energy markets and secured international pricing—with the sole exception being the expansion of the existing Trans-Mountain pipeline. The Trudeau Liberal government also enacted new laws and modified National Energy Board (NEB) regulations that specifically targeted new pipeline proposals.
A prime example is the "Energy East" project—which would have transported Alberta's energy to New Brunswick refineries and reduced dependence on foreign imports from countries like Saudi Arabia. This project faced a new requirement to account for "upstream emissions"—measuring emissions from oil and gas extraction—which had never before been part of energy regulations. This unprecedented requirement added significant complexity to the project, leading the private sector proponent to abandon it. TC Energy has since continued their successful pipeline construction—not in Canada, but in the United States and Mexico, where such stringent requirements do not exist.
Returning to Mr. Carney's position: he claims a newfound interest in building pipelines—promising to use "emergency powers" to get them built—yet only five days later, he makes the exact opposite promise while in Quebec. While Mr. Carney has since faced accusations of "talking out of both sides of his mouth," my question this week comes back to Canadian energy exports:
Do you support building new pipelines to diversify Canada's natural resource exports beyond the United States? Why or why not?
I can be reached at [email protected] or call toll-free 1-800-665-8711.
|
|
|
|
|
