Approve new Pipelines and Power. Keys to Canadian Self Sufficiency.
February 19, 2025
Photo Credit: A labourer works on a section of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project. Photograph courtesy Trans Mountain
In a recent interview with The Financial Post, Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel said Canada would have to designate major pipeline projects, such as Northern Gateway, as being “in the national interest” and therefore legally required before companies will consider investing again.
In addition, Ebel pointed out five other conditions necessary to revive interest in any pipeline projects which would include the potential revitalization of their competitor, TC Energy’s Energy East Project which has been dubbed by many as a “nation building project”. These five points are;
Repealing federal legislation such as Bill C-69, dubbed the “no-more-pipelines act,” which changed how the federal government reviews major projects and improving permitting procedures;
More Indigenous consultation and loan guarantees for groups seeking a stake in major projects;
Repeal of environmental policies, including Bill C-59’s greenwashing rules;
Eliminating the oil and gas emissions cap; and
Kill the carbon tax.1
We endorse these points and want to add to the discussion. These recommendations should not be treated as the latest sound bite in the news but rather a need to spark action by the provincial and federal governments to move quickly. Given the existential threat of U.S. economic policy which apparently has the intended objective of forcing Canada to accept annexation as the 51st state we cannot afford to ponder our alternatives for long. We need to get moving.
The fear of moving too quickly is that it can lead to overlooking the long-term impacts of a decision made as well as missing opportunities to create the necessary consensus to ensure projects are well supported.
To that end we need to develop an approach that recognizes that energy projects, like oil and gas pipelines, should be treated as transitional industries. It is unlikely that sixty plus years from now they will still be needed or financially sustainable. Therefore, they need to be developed as revenue generation efforts to fund other industries that will sustain Canada’s future. In part, the construction of pipelines can be considered as part of any synergies that might be created in the development of a National Energy corridor across the north that will facilitate greater interprovincial cooperation in the development of a long-term energy strategy. Also, one can look at pipeline development as it impacts or contributes to the potential development of other infrastructures to provide access to mineral deposits (such as power and road access). This concept of a northern corridor has been studied extensively and the time to act on it is now.
Ebel raises the significant point that pipeline development will require more consultation with indigenous groups. This is true for all resource development. To facilitate such consultations, we should establish certain principles and objectives that underline talks and facilitate a relatively expeditious process. While an oversimplification, the core principle ought to be consistent with an overall objective of Canadian economic sustainability. Project development with respect to the exploitation of all our natural resources ought to be a significant contributor to providing sustainable economic security for all indigenous people in Canada and form the foundation for funding self-determination and self-government initiatives. With that in mind it seems that resource development becomes a national imperative for all.
Repeal of environmental policies is not intended, in our minds, as an abandonment of environmental stewardship. However, current policies often aim to eliminate any activity that poses a risk to the environment rather that encouraging other environmental risk mitigating efforts that would allow investments to move forward in a responsible way. This extends to provincial governments whose polices equally interfere with economic progress.
For example, New Brunswick has a ban on fracking activities which bars the development of its significant shale gas reserves. As a result, the province has to import natural gas from the U.S. despite having an ample supply that not only would meet its needs but also would fuel economic development that could fund the creation of a sustainable economic base for the province and lift it out of the “have not” status that makes it a perennial recipient of federal transfer payments. The same arguments could be raised with respect to other bans such as, the N.B. ban on uranium mining, Quebec’s ban on oil and gas drilling, B.C.’s ban on expansion of oil export terminals and restriction on tanker traffic.
All of these policies are motivated by good intent. However, a more prudent approach right now is to “farm” responsibly and “make hay while the sun shines”. Countries like Qatar and Norway that were heavily reliant on LNG and oil production respectively developed long range policies that allowed the exploitation of those resources to fund sustainable industrial development and a national heritage trusts that potentially can fund health and welfare programs in perpetuity.
Therefore, we need to establish in Canada a permanent national economic committee representing all the provinces, territories, the federal government and including significant indigenous representation to actively develop national programs and policies that are consistent with the long-term objective of securing economic security for all Canadians.
The emissions cap and carbon tax are near-term solutions that are costly. Costly because they deter investment. We should recognize that fossil fuels will only be economic drivers for so-long. They are finite and unstainable. We have the resources to develop alternatives and to be world leaders in such development. For example, given our past experience in the development of nuclear power and our significant reserves of uranium we should continue to focus on the development of this industry. In turn nuclear power could be a core technology serving a national grid which in turn would contribute to creating the kind of infrastructure needed for northern development.
The idea of a national power grid as part of a Northern Energy Corridor is the kind of big idea that helps build a nation; much like building the railway helped in the original creation of Canada. However, this time we have the experience and know-how to do it right and to include all stakeholders (indigenous) in the quest.
In an existential crisis one can hunker down and hope the threat blows over and we survive or we can collectively act to recreate our identity as sovereign peoples. Not everyone will agree but the majority of Canadians are looking for the leadership that can create a real vision for the future. We are at a tipping point where we can either meekly sustain an existence as a dependent economy reliant on one dominant trading partner, or, we can create a vibrant diversified and independent economy where we can assert our importance as a world power.
We must act on Ebel’s recommendations as soon as possible as they are sound and are necessary. We also need to recognize that those recommendations simply are a start and there is much more work to be done through collaborative efforts. Those efforts include a concerted effort to break down provincial barriers to internal trade. Reports suggest that improving interprovincial trade could result in $200 billion of economic activity; that means there is a lot at stake. Let’s use Ebel’s statement as the start of a national call-to-act and get going!
If you agree let us know. Please share this article with others to help contribute to some momentum.
https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/enbridge-ceo-revisiting-northern-gateway-require-real-changes-governments