At Issue - Will a pipeline push soothe separatist sentiment?

Episode Date: May 8, 2026

Will Carney’s move to speed up natural resource project approvals — including pipelines — soothe separatist sentiment in Alberta? Plus, reports Honda might abandon its EV battery plant plans and the growing push for a youth social media ban in Canada. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Look, you may have noticed that it wasn't just the outfits that people were talking about when it comes to this year's Metgala, but the politics surrounding fashion's biggest event. I'm Alameen Abduh Mammu, and this week on my podcast, commotion, we're talking about billionaire Jeff Bezos and his wife, Lauren Sanchez, co-chairing this year's Met Gala, which managed to upset activists and fashion insiders. Check out the conversation that I had with fashion critics about how billionaire involvement changed the Met Gala. You can find and follow commotion on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC podcast. Hey, I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on Ad Issue, the podcast edition for Thursday, May 7th. The oil production in Canada, largely driven by the oil sands, is at a record high.

It's moved up over the course of the last decade from 3 million barrels per day to over 5 million barrels per day. And that brings great benefits to the country. We've got to rebut that argument. And the Prime Minister can help us by getting to a positive. positive conclusion on the negotiations over this MOU soon. This week we're asking could progress on pipelines soothe separatist sentiments? Plus, our electric vehicles still the North Star for Canada's industrial strategy. So what could progress on the MOU mean for Alberta and Ottawa?

Could pipelines soothe's separatist sentiments? I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down tonight. Shantelli Bear, Andrew Coyne, Althea Raj. Good to see everyone. So a couple things moving on this file. that the Premier and the Prime Minister meeting tomorrow in Ottawa, and then this news that my colleagues were reporting that there's going to be some permanent changes

to a bunch of pieces of legislation to help speed up approvals above and beyond C5, which is sort of a sunsetted piece of legislation. I wonder when you take all those things together, Chantal, what that tells you about the federal government's willingness, first of all, to build a pipeline and how they're dealing with the potential of a referendum in the fall. First problem, yes, if you're going to go for a pipeline,

you should probably do so earlier rather than later. Why? Because you do not really want to do it maybe against the backdrop of a Quebec campaign where it might not play as well as it would play in Alberta. But I think it's all a bit more complicated than that. that in the sense that I think if the federal government wanted to achieve anything by doing whatever it wants to do and we don't know what that is it should want to make sure that there's not a referendum question in that long list that Alberta

wants to ask that is about do you want to leave Canada or not because at that point you open a different can of worms which is the role of the federal government in an exercise like this and that could play even more badly against the backdrop of a Quebec campaign. And at some point, it's okay to say, we don't want to have a referendum in Alberta on sovereignty, but maybe you also don't want to have a Quebec government elected that they're committed to one.

I mean, do you think, Andrew, tying those things altogether in the way that Jason Kenney did and that others have as well, that they are directly connected, the idea of a pipeline and economic sovereignty and natural resources, and national unity. Well, they may well be in terms of the government's motivations. I don't think they should be linked in any public fashion. I don't think we should be seen to be rewarding people for threatening the country.

This idea that we've allowed to take hold over many decades in this country, that this is a knife at the throat that you can hold against your fellow Canadians in return for concessions of power or money or both is a pernicious one. And the reward for us doing that is we now face the prospect of not, just one, possibly two referendums in two different provinces in quick succession. So it's a mugs game. It's a road we should never have gone down. Now, all that being said, of course the federal government should be interested in building pipelines. What they propose in the terms of the regulation changes are no more than what

they had talked about earlier, which was to remove some of the extra layers of regulatory review that have accrued over the years. When they brought in Bill C-5, some of us, said, well, rather than do this where you say we're going to exempt certain projects from the regulations, why don't you just prune the regulation generally? So it can hardly be faulted for them doing that if it happens to have the beneficial effect of also tamping down Santamin in Alberta fine, but don't link them explicitly or publicly. Yeah, I mean, I think C5, it was sort of almost a stop gap until they could get the changes that you're talking about, which may be very complicated to do as well. Althea.

I think that's interesting revisionist history. I don't think it was a stopgap because they spent a lot of political capital on a piece of legislation that was terrible. I think it's a realization, frankly, that none of the projects want to be listed as a project of national interest under C5 because they're all worried that it is not going to land them where they want to be, which is getting their project done faster because they're worried about court challenges. I don't know exactly. what the CVC was reporting, but what I'm hearing is that there will be changes to the impact assessment, which were signaled way back last fall. Also possibly changes to the Species at Risk Act, also changes to the Fisheries Act. So that is going to raise...

Okay, I didn't read that, so... All good, sorry for not being us. But environmentalists are obviously very concerned about this. The devil is in the detail. We have seen time and time again with this government that when you actually read the fine print, there are things that you are more concerned about than at the outset.

I think the other issue that my colleagues were talking about on the national sovereignty front and the provincial sovereignty front, they are linked because the Premier of Alberta has linked them back in October when she said that the test of a pipeline, getting a pipeline approved, was a test of whether the Federation worked.

And now we have an interesting case where you actually have a prime minister that does want to build the pipeline, but you have industry and you have the government of Alberta basically fighting back against the MOU, the terms of the agreement that they signed on to last November.

And it's interesting to see where they're going to land because they both can't get what they want. But we can't possibly run a federation on the basis that if you get your way on an issue, it means the federation works. But if you don't get your way on an issue, it means the federation doesn't work and it means you get to blow up the country.

That's just absolutely, insane way to run a country that no other federation indulges it. And if I can bring it back to economics, I am still waiting to see the private promoter of any of those pipelines or other projects. I mean, yeah, I can see the politics. And I don't disagree with Andrew. There is a trap there. If you're going to be Mark Rale and saying we're all going to go for this pipeline,

people who actually promote separations should be saying, well, look what that got us. Look what more we could get if we push this further. But my bottom line question is, okay, fine, do whatever you want with regulations, if that's your plan. But show me a private promoter. Do not tell me that the government of Alberta is studying three routes and the government of Canada, two routes in other areas of BC.

I don't think that's the job of government. I think the job of government is to see if there are serious private promoters for a viable project. Well, the Canada Strong Fund, though, the sovereignty fund that we talked about last week, you know, when I talked to Minister Hodgson on Sunday, on my show, you know, he didn't say they would use it for that, but it is something that is there that could be used for that. The Minister of Finance said that it could be used and it probably would be used for pipelines. Canadians could buy into it in order to be part of the pipeline.

Whether that's a private proponent or not. Yeah, go ahead, Chantal. Sorry. And do we agree that or do we want to know if a majority of Canadians on the right and the left want to own another pipeline? Yeah. Yeah. These are all the questions. Me, I've got real estate to be a mortgage to pay up.

So I'm just asking. Okay. Let's leave that there, knowing that we will come back to it. When we come back, though, we'll take a look at Canada's industrial strategy after Honda. pauses the development on a $15 billion plant, in fact. So what does the move mean for Canada's auto sector can deals in other industries ease the pain? We've got to rebut that argument,

and the prime minister can help us by getting to a positive conclusion on the negotiations over this MOU soon. It's not a plan, but an illusion. He claims that we're going to replace 83% of our automotive sales to the U.S. by making electric vehicles that people don't want to be.

want to buy. So here to break down the trials and tribulations of Canada's industrial strategy, Chal, Andrew, and Althea. Althea, I'm going to start with you. Do you think that the strategy to bring an EV industry here that was really the previous liberal government's idea, that that was maybe a mistake or that it's falling apart, or what if you make of how the finance minister responded to this news? Well, I think he didn't need to think back about the context, which was we were basically competing for investment with the United States under Joe Biden, where large subsidies were being offered. And that's why we were offering rather equivalent subsidies or trying to level the playing field in order to court that interest. And I do think it's a bit of a lesson learned. Like there are trends. And I'm not saying that, you know, climate change is not important and that the future is not electric.

But we have developed a culture of serious private sector. subsidies from government in order to guide political decisions and policy decisions. And this government is still continuing down that road in terms of having the heavy hand of the state kind of guide where they think the future lies. And sometimes those bets are wrong. And sometimes we find out in the long term and sometimes we find out in the short term. And there is certainly an argument to be made that perhaps the investment climate would be a lot stronger if instead of, you know, tilting the scale, it just created a level playing field

for other participants and other entrants. But that is a different thing than what I think Pierre Poliav was talking about, frankly. But I'll leave it. Okay, Chatele. I wish I could say that the North American auto industry, and by that I mean the American auto industry, has been forward thinking over the course of my lifetime and that it has seen the few. future and adjusted to it. I believe that we are now in some kind of a bubble caused by the Trump policies on EVs. So I'm not saying that it's not predictable that the EVs investments from private car companies hoping to break into the North American market will pause. I'm just saying at some point, given what's happening in China, India, Europe, we may be the last

last place in the world where cars that run on fuel rather than EVs are doing well. And if the auto industry executives want to contradict me, then they need to account for all those bailouts we had to give them because they never think forward. Andrew? Well, we gave them all those bailouts long before the EV sector came along, the auto industry in general. and the production in Canada continued to decline. All we were doing by providing these bailouts

was giving ourselves the right to go on giving them more bailouts. Then the EV came along and we got really excited and the Trudeau government promised, what was it, $50 billion for three battery plants, one of which has already collapsed, the second of which is pivoting to energy storage of batteries, not for EVs, and the third of which may have to go the same route

since one of the plants it was going to be producing the batteries four has pivoted to gas vehicles. So that's not worked out terribly well. The Honda thing has not worked out terribly well. It wouldn't be any more of a good idea if they'd worked out because you're still basically substituting your own judgment for that of the investors who are investing their own money and whose jobs depend upon getting it right.

Whereas for the political thing, it's just about getting to the next political cycle. This is a habitual thing in governments of trying to basically second-guess the market. All you're doing is transfer resources from one sector to another. You're not creating jobs. You're just trading one job for another. You'd think we would learn from these repeated episodes, but unfortunately we don't. And of course, the most recent one is we're now bailing out every section of the media as well.

But to play devil's advocate or a contrast point would be the aerospace industry, which governments have also propped up and bailed out. And then you saw this week, you know, the government, no money involved in this particular order with Bombardier, but the government was there a celebrating this big order of planes. So I don't know, Althea, how do we make sense of that? And then I'll get Chantal. Well, the federal and especially the provincial government have given Bombardier a lot of money, a lot of loans and a lot of direct subsidies.

And this deal I think everybody should be excited about because it didn't actually have anything to do with government. It seems like the airline was just like, this is a good time to buy a lot of planes because we're going to get a really good price. because fuel is super high and now is the best time that we can negotiate. And we don't really know what that means. But it does mean a lot of jobs for people around Wirabel. I think on the subsidy aspect that Andrew was talking about,

the problem is all industry mostly are so heavily subsidized by their own governments. So it's like, do you want to play in that sphere or do you decide not to play at all? And there are things that I don't think the Trudeau government at all anticipated that, you know, Donald Trump would upend free trade between the two countries and that the future of the auto parts and vehicles going back and forth across the border would be called into question. And so I think it's just beholden on us as taxpayers and as citizens to demand, you know, what is, it's okay to address a crisis in the short term, but what's the long term? And sometimes I don't think we asked that enough. And it's like we gave all these companies' subsidies for EV vehicles, but we didn't really demand that government built out the EV infrastructure, right? And that's why in some part everybody's going to hybrids,

because there isn't that EV infrastructure. Yeah, well, it's hard to forecast a U.S. administration that is willing to hurt itself to hurt others, which is basically what's happening to the auto industry. But beyond that, what I found interesting, thing in that order of planes was that one of the main reasons they were ordered is because those planes that we manufacture consume less fuel than the average plane. And in this day and age, considering what's happening to fuel, that was a major advantage. So for those who say the

climate issue, the fuel charges issue, it's all gone. We bet on the wrong horse. I'm thinking maybe we're pausing, but the future may be a lot different. 30 seconds or so, Andrew. You know, the fact that other countries are willing to subsidize their industry is a reason why we shouldn't do it. If we were the only ones doing it and we could steal a worldwide monopoly in the product and we reap super profits from it, it might be worth doing in that absurd situation. But if everybody's doing it, then everybody's just basically throwing good money after bad.

Australia said goodbye to its auto industry when it said that we're tired of bailing your out every year. They haven't looked back. Australia is not the poorer because of it. And we would not be the poorer if we put an end of the subsidy game in both aerospace and automobile. Okay. You guys had lots to say on that. Always surprise me. It's a good thing you're not elected, Andrew.

Yeah. We're going to take a short break. When we come back, we'll talk about provinces testing the waters on social media bands for kids and if the federal government needs to enter the conversation. that's it. Nationally, 70% of Canadian parents with children at home support a full ban or full limitation on social media for children under 16. And so we want to know what Saskatchewan people think. So we're here to break down the politics behind this idea.

Chantal, Andrew, and Althea, join me all again. You know, I talked to the Premier of Manitoba, who also has announced this intention. You know, you can understand why a politician would say it, because it's something all parents are kind of worried about. I don't understand how they think big, big company, tech companies will do it. And I don't see any evidence either that they are willing to engage in that conversation, really. Andrew, I don't know what you think about who should be dealing with this, whether it's something that can be regulated. Well, there's a real question. I'm on two minds.

Let's put it that way about whether you should regulate this at all. There's real questions about how you'd enforce it. There's real questions about if you did try to enforce it, whether you do. more harm than good in terms of exposing people's identification to be used by bad actors, et cetera. But if anybody's going to do it, it should be the Fed. The last thing we need is 10 different provinces with 10 different standard, 10 different age thresholds, 10 different ways of verifying it, 10 different enforcement mechanisms. It just seems to me you're creating a jurisdictional nightmare that may wind up in just the service being withdrawn altogether,

as we've seen with things like the Online News Act. So I think we should, we need to take a national approach to this. That is, this is an appropriately federal matter. The provinces should butt out of it. They may be doing it just to pressure ought to what to do something. I don't know how real it is, Chantal. I'm also of two minds about this. I understand Andrew's arguments.

But I tend to think this is hard to put in place and should be tried. And on that basis, I'm not totally adverse to the notion that provinces should step forward and try out the model. I understand the lack of uniformity that eventually could result from it, but I don't think we're there yet. And it would be interesting in practice to see if it can actually be done and if it works and if it brings benefits. And once in a while, I tend to think the benefits of a federation is that you, learn from best practices rather than having the federal government spend forever, putting in regulations, usually doing harm in places that didn't expect to because they have this macro approach to policy. So I'm not totally sad that provinces are trying it out. I think some will

fail, but I think that's one of the benefits of having diversity and approaches. I don't know how this gets implemented to Chantel's point. The federal government has not had huge success with its pieces of legislation. Not just the Online Use Act, which I think has other problems, i.e., you should not introduce a piece of legislation with a giant loophole on it and then be surprised when META uses the loophole that you created. But sending that aside. Why wouldn't they, like all the provinces and territories, get together and agree on a common set of goals and an approach? Because that, to me, seems far less controversial and aggressive. And then, you know, you have, if this is a concern that they all feel that they should be acting, then they're acting at least in a singular objective.

And they can test things. But at the end of the day, it's kind of hard to at once argue that this is parental, responsibility and parents should be in charge and also that the state should regulate and control. And so I think, I'm sure we will hear more about it, but I don't know that this needs to be an issue that has to be politicized between the provinces and the territories and the federal government. Yeah, yeah, we'll see, I guess. Okay, thank you all. Appreciate that conversation. That is at issue for this week. What do you think about a ban on social media for kids under 16? Is that a feasible solution for you and your kids? Should the federal government show more? leadership on this. Let us know. Send us an email. We're at Ask at CBC.C.C.

Remember, you can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live. That's Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be right back here in your podcast feed next week. If not before, we thank you for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca slash podcasts.