Is another ‘grand bargain’ necessary to build another pipeline?

At question period on Monday, two Conservative MPs made a plea for the government to approve a pipeline that very afternoon. John Barlow, MP for the Alberta riding of Foothills, asked if the prime minister would approve a pipeline during his meeting with premiers in Saskatchewan that day.

However, the request for approval raises several questions. What pipeline is being referred to? Where would it be built and by whom? Under what conditions would it be constructed? It was evident that there was no specific proposal for a pipeline on the table for approval during the meeting in Saskatoon that day. The primary focus of the meeting was to discuss “nation-building” infrastructure projects, which could include various types of infrastructure such as ports, railways, public transit, and electricity transmission lines.

Despite the absence of a specific pipeline proposal, the official communique released after the meeting referenced the importance of getting Canadian natural resources and commodities to both domestic and international markets. This included mentioning the need for pipelines to carry decarbonized Canadian oil and gas to diversified global markets, including Asia and Europe.

In response to a reporter’s inquiry about the government’s stance on a pipeline, it was suggested that there was general support among western and territorial premiers for a corridor that would run from the Pacific northwest to Grays Bay in Nunavut. Within this corridor, there were opportunities for a pipeline to transport decarbonized oil to new markets. The federal government expressed its willingness to advance such a project if further developed.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith proposed a “grand bargain” involving expanded pipeline capacity that would benefit the Pathways Alliance, a consortium of major oil companies advocating for a carbon capture project. The idea of a grand bargain has been previously explored by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who believed that serious climate policy should be paired with pipeline construction to the West Coast.

While the threats posed by Donald Trump have created new arguments for building a pipeline, it is essential to recognize that the process is not without challenges. Conservatives have criticized Liberal legislation, such as the Impact Assessment Act, as a hindrance to pipeline development. However, the approval process for pipelines has always been complex, as demonstrated by the conditions attached to the Northern Gateway proposal approved by the previous Conservative government.

Moving forward, finding a private investor willing to build the envisioned pipeline remains a crucial step. The concept of a grand bargain offers hope for progress on climate policy and emissions reduction. However, any significant retreat on federal climate policy is unlikely to garner public support for a new pipeline.

Ultimately, decarbonizing the Canadian economy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be a priority for the government. Negotiating a new grand bargain on climate and oil policy will require a long-term commitment to sustainable practices and innovative solutions. The journey towards a greener future will undoubtedly be challenging, but it is necessary for the well-being of future generations.