At Issue - Carney fast-tracks a West Coast pipeline

Episode Date: October 2, 2026

 Prime Minister Mark Carney puts a West Coast pipeline on the approval fast track ahead of the Alberta referendum. The Parti Québécois emerges as an election frontrunner. And another Conservative MP announces his departure. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Hi, Steve Patterson here. Do you like Tom Cruise movies? I'm going to guess you said yes. Well, then, there's a good chance you'd love to see the new movie starring Tom Cruise called Digger. This is Tom like you've never seen him before. Watch as the most powerful man in the world embarks on a frantic mission to prove he's humanity's savior before the disaster he's unleashed, destroys everything. Tom stars alongside Oscar winner Riz Ahmed, John Goodman, and Oscar nominee Jesse Plemons. See Digger on the big screen October 2nd. Get your tickets now. This is a CBC podcast. Hi there, I'm Rosemary Barton this week on at issue, the podcast edition, for Thursday, October 1st.

A pipeline to the West Coast is part of our mission to transform our economy, to double our non-U.S. exports over the next decade, to create tens, in fact hundreds of thousands of good jobs to unlock the full potential of Canada. They genuinely want to identify problems and genuinely solve them. And I think that that's the, that's going to demonstrate that Canada can work. This week, we're asking, what could a new West Coast pipeline mean for Canada? Will a private proponent come forward? Or will Canada, taxpayers, own another pipeline? Plus, what could a Pazzi-Kibiqua government in Quebec mean for separatist sentiments

and how would the Prime Minister manage it? So what's been made of the fast-tracking of this new pipeline? Could the Canadian government taxpayers end up owning another pipeline? I'm Rosemary Barton. Here to break it down tonight. Chantale-Liber and your coin, El Thearaj. Good to see everyone. Andrew, I'm going to start with you.

What do you make of how the government presented the case today about why this is needed and how it's going to get over some of the real hurdles that are in front of it? Well, you would certainly say up to this point, nothing was going to stop this pipeline. Now, whether it will be stopped in future is another matter. But to get to this point, it was clear. Economics weren't going necessarily get in the way. the absence of a majority private stakeholder was not going to get in the way. Environmental concerns aren't going to get in the way.

And that's not necessarily entirely wrong. We are at a pivot point in the country. Government is always a matter of triage, of balancing competing priorities. We are in a unique moment in our history where we are facing a challenge both from the south of our border, from a president who threatens to, and from not one but two simultaneous separation movements within the country. It is an overriding priority, and it is certainly the overriding priority of the government, to show that the country can get moving again, that we can get unstuck from these multiple layers of regulatory approval,

each of which might make sense on its own, but which has had the effect of giving us a very bad reputation at home and around the world as being a place where you just can't get major projects done. And this, for one reason or another, became the demonstration project, and as I say, that's where we're where we're at now. And Chantel is the government using all those real things, the context, to get this done? Because it does seem as though there will be ongoing conversations with First Nations groups, environmentalists, and others. But to Andrew's point, it doesn't sound like there's any way that this would not go ahead, even with all of that happening. Well, two things. For one, I think that Churchill falls and the agreement.

is also a way to demonstrate that the country works. So it's not just a deep pipeline that is the poster child for that. And second, I heard Andrew say there was nothing that was going to stop the federal government and the Alberta government from getting to this juncture. What happens over the course of the next year and going forward is another story. It may or may not work out. Things may come together. But what I found interesting this week was not just the announcement that the pipeline is now of national interest,

but also the announcement of LNG, liquidified natural gas and kittamate, which would have us double our exports to Asia in theory. I don't think that two years ago, if someone had said that you would announce fossil fuel investments of that magnitude, between Alberta and BC or in BC, on the eve of a Quebec election, in the middle of an Alberta election, without having BC, without having those two provinces where the climate issue

has been a strong issue for years, without having people jump to the barricades and change the nature of the conversation to make it very adversarial, someone would have said, you're dreaming in color, or you're dreaming in a lobby place for fossil fuels. And yet, I don't think this announcement will make a ripple in the Quebec campaign.

And this week for the LNG announcement, an NDP premier was standing next to the prime minister. Yeah. There was, as well as that announcement, a big package on ocean protections as well that some people think was good and some people think was not enough. But that was at least an attempt to show that they were still thinking about aspects of the environment. Elthea, what do you make of it? Of the ocean announcement? No, all of it. All of the moment we're in.

All of it. All of it. Yeah, the whole shebaing. All of it. Well, I mean, I think that is right. I think there is a mood appears to have changed. Can it swing back?

Probably when? I don't know. I do think Andrew is right that the consultations, or rather, that the, I guess, the one month of consultation, because they announced that they were going to list the project, or we're thinking about listing the project on August 1st and network,

here we are, we're basically baked in. And I think wrapping it in the, this is proof that Canada works is a bit risky because, you know, their own explanatory document goes into saying that a lot, many of the First Nations communities that they consulted with, felt that they didn't have enough information presented to them, that they couldn't make a determination, you know, or there or take part fully. So you can see that in rushing the process, they might actually create more legal problems for themselves down the road. And to me, when you think back a year ago, when Premier Smith first raised this issue and first suggested that a pipeline to BC's coast, in light of at the time Premier E.B's disapproval of it was a proof point of whether the Federation could

where everyone was like, oh, well, this is ridiculous. Like, Canada is stronger than a pipeline. And now the entire government, the federal government, it seems like the country has fallen behind this proof point that if we can't get this pipeline, then it means that the country doesn't work. And I think that there's a lot of obstacles in this project that will require us to not just look at what the government is announcing,

but what they're actually doing behind the scenes. Andrew? I agree that, well, I think I agree with it's all. that we should certainly not be basing the question of whether Canada works on the success or failure of one pipeline project. That is not how these things work. And it would be very unfortunate if that idea took hold. But the more general proposition that we've got to diversify our trade as a matter of urgent national priorities, it's not just a matter of a fond hope or a wish, it's something we have to get done.

Point one. And point two, as a broader thing, that we need to make this country look and be an exciting project that people want to be part of. There's all kinds of other ways in which we need to address secession of movements, but one part of the puzzle is conveying to the idea that this is a, the Canada is going places and you don't want to miss out on this. And so as part of that larger picture, I think that's the way to look at this particular project,

but the country doesn't live or die based on one pipeline. But the project, as you said off the top, Andrew, doesn't have a private backer. It has a backer that's doing like 10% of it. And if the idea is to demonstrate the country is worth investing in and it can be attracting private capital, it's not clear to me why it doesn't have that, although the Prime Minister seems confident it will come. Chantal.

Well, I don't know that he's confident that it will come as much as he is confidently saying that it will make us money one way or the other. But if you are in private business, and you've got governments, two of them, begging to finance a pipeline project for political but also for diversification reasons, why would you step up to say, I'm going to invest if the public dime is being offered to you to take your product to the coast?

So up to a point that it's a self-created. We are stepping in the bridge thing, so you can understand. invest in other things. And I'm not so sure that we will see private promoters show up for that pipeline between now and completion if that ever happens. Last word to you, Althea. Well, I agree with everything my colleagues have just said. I mean, the one thing that struck me was back in Calgary when the MOU with Alberta was first announced. You know, one of the first questions at the Chamber of Commerce was, like, what can you do

to de-risk this further? And it seemed like the prime minister was a bit surprised by the question, and like, what do you mean? I've just like announced this like slew of things that would allow a potential private, because at the time that was like a kind of non-negotiable, or at least that's the way the Liberal Caucus understood it to be, non-negotiable to allow this project to go through. And, well, nobody did come. So the government is derisking the project further.

And frankly, for political reasons, it's not clear that there is a business case because there are a number of other pipelines, actually, and increased capacity coming on board. So they are banking that we are still going to be, and we Canada will replace, possibly, other sources, for a decade plus to come. And it's not clear that the math is there. Okay, I got to leave this there,

but you've all alluded to what sort of the next topic is about. When we come back, we'll talk about the Quebec election with dramatic shifts in the polls, the PQ emerging as a high. heavy favorite to win on Monday. What could it mean the province, Quebec-Ottoe relations, that sounds. We will work with whatever government that Quebecers choose on the 5th of October. It's a spirit of cooperative federalism. We're working together. We're understanding issues. We're finding solutions. Here to break down what to expect in the Quebec provincial election.

Chantal, Andrew and Althea. Shantel, let's start with you. Do you think that that, I mean, obviously the government, Ottawa will work with whoever wins. But do you think that this government, this prime minister and the country are prepared for what could happen on Monday. I think, yes, by and large, let's talk first about what is happening here. And what you're seeing here, as we are days from voting, is a triple failure. The failure of the outgoing government of the CAQ to convince voters that much as the federal liberals did with Mark Carney when he replaced Justin Trudeau, Christine Frechette is providing the change that 70 plus percent of Quebecers say they want.

That obviously has failed. The failure of the liberals to say they are that change and the failure of the Partsiqueue to overcome the refusal of 70 percent of Quebecers to look at a government that wants to hold a referendum. So the PQ has gone over the course of this campaign from 29 to 30 percent in. voting intentions. If it does win a government or a majority government, it will do so with less or one-third of the votes cast because there are five parties on the ice. As for Mr. Carney, he is currently the most popular politician in Quebec, which is quite different from past experiences. He sits in the last election, 42% of the vote. He sits higher than that at this point. Nobody

is going to get 40% on Monday. So he's got political capital to spend in Quebec. There's no reason for him to waste it now. But the PQ, even winning with 30%, 29, 30%, Andrew, they still have a mandate to go forward

with what they've put forward to Quebecers. Do they not? And how complicated is it for them and how complicated for Ottawa to respond? Well, it's some kind of mandate. Look, this is high unusual in a lot of ways. First of all, have five parties with at least 10% of the vote, which is what the polls are now saying.

There's only two elections in our history that that's been the case. The last Quebec election and the 97 federal election. What was different about those two cases was you had one clear frontrunner, 20 points ahead of the other parties. In this case, you've got the PQ at less than or maybe at 30% of the vote, maybe seven points ahead of their nearest private, maybe less than that. That's never happened. You've never had a winning party, the first place party, getting less than or 30% of the vote. and to pile on top of that, if they can eke out, because of all these vote splits, a majority of the seats, it will absolutely confirm,

if there's any remaining doubters, the bankruptcy of first past the post. And to claim that, that thin read is a mandate to have a hold of referendum and breaking up the country is preposterous. Now, one saving grace is Paul St. Pierre Plemondon is nothing, if not, adjustable. He's gone back and forth on these questions. four or five times in the course of his career. I could well imagine him finding the excuses not to hold the referendum that he's sworn a blood oath he will hold

because if there's one constantist career, it's all about Paul Sampier Plymante. Well, I mean, that is the pattern of PQ leaders, right? Promise a referendum, get elected, and then find ways to not do it. But I don't know, he seems very committed to the idea. Yes, not all the EU leaders. Just a second. Only two Quebec PQ leaders promised referendums,

René Levesque and Jacques Pagos, and both held them. Well, Bernoulli promised a referendum if he had the moral authority to go ahead and holding. When the circumstances were right. But no PQ leader who promised a referendum in a campaign did not hold one. Nussain Bouchard didn't. Pauline Mawa did not.

Jean-François-Lise did not. That has not happened. So he may back off in the face of reality, but he would be the first to promise one and not hold it. Okay, Althea. I'd love that Andrew took this two words, electoral reform. I did not see that coming. He always will.

But on the Quebec election. You're giving this kind of material, come on. That's right, that's right. I don't know what's going to happen on Monday because I think that this week's polling actually kind of like was a collective shock to people that actually it's possible that the PQ could have a majority.

government and what that would mean, not just in Quebec, but in the rest of the country. I think this is the first time perhaps outside of Ottawa. People are starting to talk about that. And yes, perhaps. I mean, I don't see Palestine Pia Mano changing his mind on holding referendum after Donald Trump, but he has wavered in the past on things like individual rights, for example, or even his kind of ideology in terms of government spending. So, but it has been such a central focus of his campaign.

It is something that has galvanized PQ militant volunteers, the base of the party, that I think it would be a complete disaster for him to reverse course on this. I do think that if he becomes premier, it will be a source of much tension because he's quite pugnacious. He likes to have battles. and that is not Prime Minister Carney's the way he operates at all but it could lead to more money for Quebec because the Prime Minister has a tendency to just throw money at problems

but there could be many different clashes on immigration for example we saw this week so it could be a bit more conflict than we have seen with other premiers in the past for sure yes probably more but I'm here I'm still curious to see where we land on Monday night and why I say that is over the first month of the campaign, Paul Saint-Pierre Plamondon was really playing it cool, smiling, not going, saying at the debate, I will work with Canada when it's in the interest of Quebec. Over the last week, he's gone back to his more normal nature as we have known it. So saying he's looking for conflicts on immigration, on the monarchy.

No one had that on their bingo cards the last week of the campaign. Getting rid of the lieutenant governor. And Quebecers are not afraid of the notion of a referendum. They know how to say no, but they do not want squabbles to be the order of the day between Ottawa and Quebec over the next two years on a daily basis. And that it may be that this last week ends up hurting. more than helping the PQ secure a majority. Okay. We're going to take a short break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the resignation of another longtime conservative MP and what it could mean for Pierre Pauliev's leadership.

That's next. So what does this mean for the conservatives? Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, Elthiel, start with you. Certainly people that know Scott Aitchison, he's the housing critic. He is one of those MPs who works really hard on policy and has lots of ideas that he tries to put forward. What do you think him leaving, deciding that he's going to leave at the end of this sitting, indicates? I think you mean to say he's reasonable and kind and works on both sides of the aisle and is kind of like almost in a way of modeled parliamentarian.

It is not good news for Pierre Pueleev. It is a further sign that there are big caucus divisions and that a number of MPs do not have faith that Mr. Pueleev can win in the next election. And that they don't really feel like stomicking a battle or they don't think that there will be a battle before the next election.

They don't want to spend another five or seven years in the opposition benches. And that they really, frankly, don't see themselves reflected in kind of this more populist, angry, troll online version that they feel

they're part of their parody has been captured by. And I feel their leader is too weak to do anything about it. So, yeah, not good news for Mr. Poitiev. And I think it will be hard on some of Mr. Aitchison's colleagues who really respect him and will miss him. But not, you know, not necessarily unpredictable. Yeah.

Andrew, I mean, moderate is probably the word that most people would use for Scott Aitchison. So does that indicate anything to you in terms of what's happening to the party? Well, I have no idea why particularly Scott Aitchson has decided to call it quits. So I think we have to be a little bit careful there. But when you're on to eight MPs now that by one means or another have left the caucus or left the party, then you start to draw some conclusions. Look, they were willing, they could see enough of themselves reflected in the party

circa, you know, January of 2025 when they thought they were going to win a big majority. So part of it is just people taking a look at this and saying there is no way we're going to win the next election. That shouldn't necessarily be the be-all and the end-all. It's a perfectly honorable occupation to be an opposition politician, to be criticizing and poking holes in the government, trying to make government better.

But for a lot of them, that's their main aim in life is to get into government. that's partly because of the leadership and of the particular courses they pursued and that's a real question is whether they can ever win with Pierre Poli Ava as their leader but it's also just the conundrum the party is in when your main opponent has decided to take all of your policies

and basically govern as you what do you do? Where do you go? It's a very difficult conundum the Carney government has invaded so much of conservative turf that they really left them very little room to maneuver But there is also a lot of fatigue amongst like-minded MPs like Scott H.S. And with the self-destructive battles with the Trumpian wing of caucus and the Conservative Party. And at some point, and you talk to some conservatives, I haven't spoken to Mr. H.erson,

but some conservatives who would feel comfortable in this kind of conservatism thinking that they're wasting their time. They don't recognize their own party at this point. It's not good news when people like that who would have been senior members of any conservative cabinets had Pierre Puelev, one, decide that they need to do something with their lives that is more useful than having battles inside caucus and not really being heard or showcased

in the way that they should be in the House of Commons because that is also part of the problem. You wonder, is this which finally breaks the back of the leadership of the leader? I don't think so. I think there are many conservatives now who believe that they might as well just sacrifice the current leader to the next election and then move on. Okay. That's at issue for this week.

What do you think about the new Pacific Link pipeline, as they're calling it? Are you concerned about who might own the project? What question do you have about your? environmental protections or other issues. You can let us know. Send us an email. We read them at Ask.c.c.ca. Remember, you can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live this Sunday at 10am, Eastern. I'll be in Montreal ahead of that Quebec election.

Back in your podcast feeds next week, thank you for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.