Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney's mixed message on pipelines

Photo: Contributed

Central Okanagan-Similakmeen-Nicola MP Dan Albas

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 Feb. 12, when Liberal Party leadership frontrunner Mark Carney visited Kelowna to meet with local Liberals and campaign for their support in replacing Justin Trudeau as party leader.

During a meeting, 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 B.C.’s Pacific Northwest coast)—have made national energy projects so complex a candidate for prime minister must resort to citing unnamed "emergency powers" as the only path forward.

The concerns over Carney's comments also reached the Province of Quebec, where just five days later on Feb. 17, a Quebec-based journalist asked Carney if he was going to "impose” a pipeline on Quebec.

The answer from Carney this time changed significantly, with Carney stating that: "I would never impose (a pipeline) on Quebec,".
That contradiction raises a serious question given 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 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 government also enacted new laws and modified National Energy Board 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 were never before been part of energy regulations.

The unprecedented requirement added significant complexity to the project, leading the private sector proponent to abandon it. TC Energy has since continued its successful pipeline construction—not in Canada, but in the United States and Mexico, where such stringent requirements do not exist.

Returning to 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, made the exact opposite promise while in Quebec. While he 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.

Dan Albas is the Conservative MP for Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.