Nuanced. - 215. Should Canada Build Another Pipeline? Arguments For & Against

Episode Date: December 1, 2025

Should Canada build another major pipeline, or is that incompatible with our climate goals? Chief Aaron Pete walks through the full debate: economic sovereignty, energy security, Indigenous equity ownership, climate science, spill risks, court decisions, B.C. and coastal First Nations, and whether pipelines can honestly be a “bridge” to a cleaner future.Send us a textSupport the shownuancedmedia.ca

You know, All right, Canada, grab a double double, take a seat, and maybe stretch a little, because we're about to talk about something that is deeply Canadian, deeply important, and somehow always deeply dramatic. Pipelines. Yes, again. Now, before anyone fires up an angry Facebook post or starts a group chat argument that ruins a perfectly good Sunday, let's be clear.

This isn't a pipelines or evil segment, or pipelines will save humans. humanity segment. Those are great debates if you enjoy yelling, but the rest of us prefer to live in the real world because pipelines touch everything, affordability, energy security, indigenous rights, climate commitments, national unity, and the small detail that Canada is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves on Earth. So when people start asking seriously, are we going to build another pipeline, that's not a trivial question. That's a, what kind of country do we want Canada to be in 2050 type question? And let's be clear.

We could use some good news about major national projects, especially after watching the Toronto Blue Jays most recent playoff run, because if there's anything more painful than an 11th inning collapse, it's watching Canada spend 10 years arguing about a pipeline and then acting shocked when the budget, just like the Jay's batting lineup, doesn't show up when it matters. Now, here's the part people forget. Talking about pipelines doesn't make you anti-environment, and supporting climate action doesn't make you anti-economy.

Most Canadians actually live in that middle area where we want. Clean water, good jobs, a livable planet, strong energy security, and heating bills that don't feel like a Blue Jays ticket markup in the postseason. And yet, pipelines spark more emotion than a missed strike call. They divide Canadians faster than a debate about the Leafs, odds of making it past the first round. But they matter because they shape what we export, who we sell to, how much revenue we generate, how fast we transition to cleaner energy, and whether stable democracies or authoritarian regime, control global supply. So today, we're not here to dunk on anyone. We're here to understand,

to walk through the full story. How we got here? Well, people are actually arguing, what First Nations are saying, what global markets want, and whether the moment is an opportunity or deja vu, because this debate isn't just about steel in the ground, it's about Canada's future. So let's get into it. How Canada became a pipeline country. To understand why Canada is even discussing another pipeline, we need to start with a reality most people don't appreciate. Canada already has one of the largest pipeline networks on the planet. More than 840,000 kilometers of pipelines run under this country, enough to wrap around Earth 21 times. So when we debate a pipeline, we're not introducing something new.

We're talking about adding capacity to a system that already defines a major part of our national economy. And that economy relies heavily on energy. Oil and gas are Canada's largest export category worth roughly $200 billion per year. Energy accounts for around 10% of GDP, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and underpins public services nationwide. Canada is also the fourth largest oil producer in the world, producing just over 5 million barrels per day. But almost all of that oil goes to one customer, the United States. Often at a discount because we lack infrastructure to reach global markets.

Economically, it's like producing world-class wheat, but only selling. it to your neighbor at whatever price he decides. That's one of the pressures that keeps the pipeline conversation alive. But the conversation isn't just economic. It's also environmental. Pipelines can leak, disrupt ecosystems, and concentrate risk. But the bigger issue is the climate impact of oil they transport. The IPCC warns that global emissions must fall sharply in this decade to avoid

catastrophic warming. That's not a fringe viewpoint. It's mainstream science. And when I interviewed David Suzuki, he put it bluntly. We're already off the cliff. In his view, humanity has already passed key ecological tipping points and building long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure is the wrong direction. That's the stance of many environmental advocates. We don't have time to lock ourselves into more oil infrastructure. But to understand pipelines in Canada, you also have to understand First Nations' perspectives, and those are not uniform. Some nations oppose pipelines because of the risk to the land, water, salmon, treaty rights, and cumulative environmental damage. Legal challenges like Sabletooth, Nation, First Canada, show how seriously courts treat

issues of consultation, consent, and environmental protection. But other nations are are exploring an entirely different approach, one rooted not in acquiescence, but in sovereignty. Across the country, indigenous communities are increasingly pursuing equity ownership, revenue sharing, and major project partnerships as tools for building economic independence. Organizations like the First Nations Major Projects Coalition represent more than a hundred nations exploring ownership stakes in energy projects, including pipelines. And no one expresses the reasoning behind this more clearly than Chief Clarence Louis, who spent decades pushing back against stereotypes and dependency.

He has said on this program, natives work for a living. Economic development is the horse that pulls the social cart. But the deeper philosophy behind that line matters just as much. For many nations, participating in major projects isn't selling out. It's economic sovereignty. It's the path away from chronic reliance on government transfers that were never designed to make nations whole. It's the difference between begging Ottawa for funding and generating their own revenue on

their own terms with their own decision-making power. For communities that choose it, equity in pipelines or energy projects isn't a similar It's liberation. It funds housing, language revitalization, youth programs, elder care, and everything needed to rebuild what colonialism tried to take away. It's control, not compromise. But there are other nations, like those led by people such as Grand Chief Stephen Point, who emphasize stewardship, reminding us that economic opportunity must always be balanced with responsibilities to the land, water, and future generations. And that's the key. There is no single indigenous stance on pipelines. There are hundreds of nations, each with its own laws, history, rights, culture, leadership, and priorities. Any honest national conversation has to acknowledge that complexity. So where does that leave Canada? In a uniquely conflicted position, a major oil producer with massive export potential. a country with ambitious climate targets, an economy still shaped by natural resources, a nation struggling with affordability and rising debt, first nations whose rights and sovereignty must be respected, and a world increasingly shaped by energy security and geopolitical

tensions. Put all that together, and you get a country almost designed to argue about pipelines. Our economy, our climate goals, our politics, our history, and our geography collide in this one issue, which brings us to the next question. Who is actually pushing for a new pipeline, and what is their case? Let's dive into that argument for building one. All right, let's get into the side of the conversation that actually wants a new pipeline, because despite what the loudest corners of Twitter and the most dramatic protest footage might suggest, that side is not a fringe group of Albertans shouting into a prairie wind.

It is, in fact, a significant portion of the country, and some of the most influential political voices in Canada are making that argument loudly, clearly, and unapologetically. A recent poll reported by The Hub in late 2025 found that a majority of Canadians support a proposed pipeline from Alberta to the B.C. coast. That matters. That tells us the national pulse isn't as polarized as the headlines make it seem. And when you look back a bit, you see this isn't new. In 2019, at the peak of the Trans Mountain debate, an Ipsos poll showed that 60% of British Columbians supported expansion. That's not a fringe. That's a majority in the province that supposedly defines anti-pipeline politics. So while BC unquestionably has strong environmental

movements, there is also a large pragmatic middle that says, if we can do this safely, if it brings jobs, and if First Nations are partners instead of bystanders, why wouldn't we at least consider it? Now, Alberta's stance is not exactly breaking news. Alberta produces millions of barrels of oil per day, and almost all of it goes to one customer, the United States. Not because Canada is in a deep, passionate free trade relationship with America, but because we literally don't have the infrastructure to sell to anyone else. If you ran a business with one buyer who sells all the terms and dictates all your prices, nobody would call that company strategic.

They'd say you're stuck. And Alberta, from its perspective, has been stuck for decades. So to Alberta, the question of another pipeline isn't ideological. It's existential. It's the difference between being a global supplier or just being a branch plant of U.S. energy demand, and this is where the country's biggest political voices step into frame. Pierre Polyev, the current conservative leader, has been arguing that Canada must become economically self-sufficient and sovereign.

That's a direct quote. He has said, we need to get out from under America's thumb and start building the infrastructure to sell our natural resources to new markets. Poliev frames pipelines not as regional assets, but as national tools of independent. Part of a bigger vision, he calls Canada First National Energy Corridor. His message is simple. If we can't sell our own resources to the world, we're not truly independent. We're vulnerable.

We're dependent. And we're leaving billions on the table, while other countries, including authoritarian regimes, cash in. Alberta Premier Daniel Smith goes even further. She calls this moment a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become an energy superpower. Her argument is blunt. If Canada doesn't seize this moment, if we don't build the infrastructure, streamline the regulatory system and commit to reaching global markets, then someone else will fill that gap. And that someone else is almost always an authoritarian regime that doesn't care about

greenhouse gases, environmental standards, consultation, indigenous rights, or human rights. Smith's view is essentially a moral argument. If the world is going to buy oil, and let's be honest, they are. Better that it comes from a stable democracy with high environmental standards than from regimes where transparency disappears the moment you ask a question. And it's not just conservatives talking this way. The newly negotiated Canada-Alberta Energy Agreement under the current federal government

literally says the goal is to unlock our energy potential and make Canada an energy superpower, all while lowering emissions and diversifying export routes. Those are the federal government's words, not lobbyists, not think tanks, the federal government. So this isn't a fringe idea anymore. This is becoming national language. And what do all these voices, federal and provincial, agree on? They agree that the world needs more oil for years to come. They agree with the International Energy Agency that even in aggressive transition scenarios, oil and gas still play a role.

They agree that if the world is going to buy oil, Canada should be a preferred supplier because we have higher standards, more transparency, better labor protections, and stronger environmental oversight than most of the countries competing with us. They agree that if we want to be taken seriously, diplomatically, and economically, we need the infrastructure that lets us sell to more than just one customer. And they agree on something Canadians rarely hear out loud. If we want to fund a rapid transition to clean energy, we need revenue. Solar farms don't build themselves. Wind turbines aren't free. Heat pumps, electric grids, hydrogen hubs, EV charging stations, none of the high.

materializes from good vibes and hopes, they require billions of dollars. Real money. Pipeline supporters argue that money has to come from somewhere, and in the short to medium term, it comes from oil and gas. This leads to the underlying philosophy at the core of the pro-pipeline argument. Pipelines are not a rejection of the future. They are a bridge to it, a bridge that funds the transition, a bridge that sustains communities while we build alternatives, a bridge that keeps Canada stable while the world evolves. Supporters also argue that pipelines aren't just about Canada becoming an energy superpower, but about first nations becoming economic superpowers. Equity ownership in pipelines and energy infrastructure gives nations something

they have historically been denied, stable, long-term, own source revenue. The ability to fund housing, language revitalization, governance capacity, not from a federal budget line item, but from investments they control. It's a path towards sovereignty that is economic, not just symbolic. And then there's the reality Canadians feel every day. People are tired. They're tired of inflation. They're tired of affordability crisis. They're tired of hearing that Canada has potential but no actual plan. they're tired of a country that seems unable to build anything ever without 10 years of arguments 17 court challenges three environmental reviews and a national nervous breakdown what canadians want what polling reflects is balance they want environmental responsibility and economic strength

clean energy and an energy security a transition and the ability to survive the transition. They want stability. They want options. They want a real plan, not slogans. And in the eyes of pipeline supporters, a new pipeline is exactly that, a plan. Not the whole plan, not the end state, but a critical piece of a larger pragmatic strategy for Canada's future. And here's where the economic impact ties everything together, because building a new pipeline isn't just symbolism. It's billions of dollars in real economic activity. When we built the Trans Mountain Expansion,

tens of thousands of jobs were created across construction, engineering, indigenous contracting, local business, and supply chain companies. Entire regional economies got a temporary but powerful boost. And then there's the long-term revenue. More than 80% of Canada's crude exports travel by pipeline, and nearly all of them go to the, U.S. If Canada can reach Asian or European buyers willing to pay global prices, even a small increase in the selling price per barrel becomes billions in additional revenue for our economy.

Revenue that funds health care, housing, roads, climate programs, everything Canadians expect their government to deliver. Pipeline supporters argue that without that revenue, every other conversation, affordability, social programs, infrastructure, transition, gets harder, much harder. And maybe the most compelling argument pipeline supporters make is about Canada's capacity to build. If Canada becomes a country that can't build infrastructure of any kind, that's a national problem, not just for oil, not just for pipelines, for everything, nuclear, hydroelectric, transit, transmission lines, even housing.

Canadians don't want to be a country paralyzed by process. They want to be a country capable of doing big things. That's the case for a pipeline. But, and this is where the conversation gets truly Canadian, there are also serious, thoughtful, grounded arguments against a new pipeline. Arguments rooted in climate science, arguments grounded in indigenous sovereignty, arguments around long-term environmental risk, water protection, salmon habitats, and generational responsibility.

So if so many Canadians, including some of the country's biggest political leaders, support another pipeline, why are so many others still firmly opposed? Let's get into that next. The case against a pipeline. So let's flip the conversation. If the case for a pipeline is about sovereignty,

security, and economic strength, then the case against one is about something deeper, the long-term future. not just the next election cycle, but the next century. Because the people who oppose pipelines aren't all extremists or professional activists. That's the cartoon version. The real version is rooted in climate science, environmental risk, indigenous sovereignty, legal precedence, and generational stewardship. And the first argument, the foundation of the anti-pipeline position, comes straight from the science itself.

The IPCC says we're running out of time to reduce greenhouse gases, and that's not activism. That's the world's top scientific body. And when I interviewed David Suzuki, he didn't sugarcoat anything. He did say, we're already off the cliff, meaning, in his view, humanity has already passed ecological tipping points. So a new pipeline isn't a neutral act. It's a long-term investment in fossil fuel infrastructure at exactly the moment science says we need to be transitioning away. To people who hold that view, the issue isn't whether pipelines are efficient. It's that they lock Canada into a carbon-heavy path for 40 to 60 years, long after we're supposed to be cutting emissions to near zero.

Then there's the environmental risk itself. Pipeline supporters often say pipelines are safer than rail or trucking, and statistically, they're right. But safer doesn't mean safe. Canada and the U.S. have several high-profile examples where pipelines have failed, and the consequences were serious. Take Husky Energy's 2016-Suskatchewan Pipeline spill, where roughly 225,000 leaders, of oil leaked into the North Saskatchewan River, communities downstream, including indigenous communities, had to shut down drinking water intakes. That wasn't a small incident. It disrupted life for thousands of people. On the Enbridge Line 6B disaster in Michigan in 2010, one of the

worst inland oil spills in U.S. history were diluted bitumen leaked into the Kalamazoo River, costing more than a billion dollars to clean up. it took years of rehabilitation, or TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline, which had several significant leaks, including a 2019 spill of nearly 400,000 liters in North Dakota. These incidents aren't theoretical. They are documented, and they're costly, and they show up, show why some communities don't trust state-of-the-art safety systems, because even the state-of-the-art can fail. For communities relying on rivers, salmon, hunting grounds, and clean groundwater, these aren't small risks.

They're existential. This is where indigenous sovereignty comes into play. Some nations want equity ownership and pipelines. Others oppose them entirely. And opposing nations aren't doing it to be difficult. They're doing it because they've seen what happens when things go wrong and because the law is on their side. Cases like Haida Nation v. British Columbia, Taku River, Saywell Tooth, versus Canada, and Delgamu, all affirm indigenous rights, title, and the crown's duty to consult and accommodate. And many nations argue that consultation on major energy projects feels more like a checkbox, not a partnership.

Add to that, the deeper, older worldview many indigenous communities hold, stewardship, not ownership. stewardship, a belief that land isn't a commodity, but a responsibility, that decisions must consider ancestors and future generations, not just the next quarter's GDP. To those communities, a pipeline isn't just a project, it's a risk being handed to their grandchildren. Then there's the timing argument. Pipeline opponents say the world is changing too fast to justify megaproject.

projects that take decades to pay off. The global energy transition is accelerating. Countries like the U.S. are investing billions into renewables. The European Union is shifting away from fossil imports. Automakers are phasing out combustion engines. Entire sectors are electrifying. In that context, opponents ask a reasonable question. If the world is moving away from oil faster than expected, could a new pipeline become a

stranded asset? Could it lose value before it delivers its promised economic benefits? Then there's the reputational argument. In a world where climate policy increasingly shapes trade, finance, and diplomacy, being seen as a country doubling down on fossil infrastructure, could cost Canada more than it earns. Carbon tariffs, climate-related trade barriers, and investor preferences could hurt our competitiveness. Opponents argue, that Canada shouldn't risk its future reputation for a temporary economic boost. And then there's the indigenous equity debate. Pipeline supporters say equity ownership gives nation's self-determination.

Opponents say, why should our path to sovereignty depend on oil? They argue that nations deserve clean, sustainable economic opportunities, like geothermal, solar, hydro, ecotourism, land management. industries that won't leave communities liable if something goes wrong. And finally, there's the climate commitment argument. If Canada expands fossil infrastructure, can we still meet our emissions reduction targets? Or are we committing ourselves to an economic model that future governments will be legally required to undo? Opponents say you can't promise aggressive emission reductions while building infrastructure

designed to increase production. And whether you agree or not, it's a legitimate question. One pipeline supporters need to be able to answer. So the case against a pipeline isn't about hating Alberta. It's not about wanting Canadians to freeze in the dark. It's not about telling workers they don't deserve good paying jobs. It's about looking at risk, responsibility, law, sovereignty, timing, and the long-term health of the planet. It's about saying, if we're serious about future generations, what kind of infrastructure should we be really building today?

That's the case against a pipeline, and it deserves to be understood in full. Now, the real question is, given everything we've explored, the economic arguments, the environmental risks, the political forces, the global trends, what comes next? Where does Canada go from here? The future. So here's where Canada actually stands today, not in theory, not in nostalgia, but according to the latest reporting from CBC, Global News, the National Post, and others who've been tracking this pipeline story in real time, because in the last few months, something happened that almost nobody saw coming.

Ottawa and Alberta cut a memorandum of understanding to explore a brand new pipeline route to the northern coast of B.C. According to CBC News, the deal was so unexpected that even the Premier of British Columbia was blindsided. And not in my staff forgot to brief me way. Eby told the CBC, he found out from the media that Alberta and the federal government were negotiating a pipeline that would run through his province. And he didn't hold back. He called it unacceptable, a total surprise and said flat out that British Columbia must be

at the table from the beginning. And honestly, he is right. A pipeline to the Pacific literally cannot happen without British. British Columbia. The land, the ports, the waters, the First Nations, it's their backyard, their coastline, and their jurisdiction. Meanwhile, Alberta Premier Daniel Smith has been celebrating the deal as a generational victory. She told reporters that Ottawa finally recognizes Alberta's central role in Canada's economic and energy security. Global news reported that Smith sees this as a moment Canada finally starts treating Alberta's resources as an

national asset rather than a regional headache. Then there's Mark Carney, the prime minister. Before entering politics, the man made a career warning global markets about the financial risks of fossil fuels. He was Mr. Climate Risk. He lectured banks about stranded assets. He pushed the global finance sector towards net zero commitments. But according to reporting by the National Post, Carney is now signaling that Canada's

tanker ban on the west coast. The one that killed Northern Gateway might need to be adjusted if the new pipeline is truly in the national interest. That is not a small pivot. That is a man who once warned banks not to bet on oil, now betting on a major new oil pipeline. Global news also highlighted another astonishing detail. In the MOU with Alberta, Carney agreed to pause or softened several federal climate regulations, including parts of the emissions cap, to make a space for Alberta's growing production and new export capacity. In return, Alberta committed to ramping up carbon capture and industrial decarmitization. And then there's Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, who jumped into the conversation immediately. CBC reported that Mo framed the deal as a sign that

Ottawa is finally recognizing the economic power of the prairies. He's been pushing for a prairie-led energy corridor for years, and he sees this as the first real chance to build one. But if Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ottawa sound aligned, British Columbia is very much not. An article from CBC News made it clear, Eby is not saying no, but he's reminding everyone, pointedly, that the pipeline's proposed endpoint would be in the territory of coastal First Nations who have already expressed opposition to crude oil tankers on the North Coast. These nations were key in shutting down Northern Gateway a decade ago.

Their authority is not symbolic. It is legal. And they're already signaling they're prepared to fight again. Meanwhile, Champagne, the federal minister now tasked with selling all of this, told global news that Canadians finally understand the link between energy security, economic security and national security. He's positioning this pipeline, not as Alberta's project, but is Canada's defense against an unpredictable U.S. and a more volatile world.

Over in the UK, even the BBC picked up on this story, reporting that Canada is once again debating a pipeline to the Pacific coast and emphasizing the political friction between Alberta, Ottawa, and British Columbia. When the BBC covers your domestic pipeline fight, you know it's gotten real. So this is where we actually stand. Ottawa and Alberta are suddenly aligned in a way that would have seemed unthinkable a few years ago. Saskatchewan is cheering on from the sidelines. British Columbia is furious.

It was left out of early talks. Coastal First Nations are already drawing boundary lines. And the federal government, under a former Bank of England climate hawk, is now seriously considering adjusting one of the most politically sacred environmental policies on the West Coast. This is not just a policy debate anymore. It's a national identity moment because the question Canada is facing today isn't, should we build a pipeline? That's too simple, too small. The real question is, in a world where energy is now national security and climate is an existential crisis and indigenous rights are constitutional law, can Canada still?

build something big, strategic, and nationally important? Or, are we a country that can no longer act at all? That's where we are today. Everything from here forward, unity, sovereignty, climate leadership, reconciliation will hinge on how we answer that question. Conclusion. So where does all of this leave us? Canada is standing at a rare crossroads. The kind of where our past, present and future, are all arguing at the same time. And unlike past pipeline debates, this one isn't really about one project. It's about what kind of country we want to be when the world around us is reshaping itself faster than we are. On one side, there's a serious case that expanding energy infrastructure could strengthen the economy, diversify our markets, create opportunities

for indigenous equity, and reduce our dependence on a single trading partner. That argument is now shaping decisions in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the federal government under Mark Karni. On the other side, there are equally serious warnings about climate commitments, environmental risk, coastal ecosystems, treaty rights, and the long-term financial viability of fossil megaprojects. British Columbia and many coastal first nations are raising those concerns early, emphatically, and with the full weight of the constitutional law behind them. This isn't a debate between good actors and bad actors. It's a debate between competing responsibilities.

A responsibility to protect the land. A responsibility to build a resilient economy. A responsibility to honor indigenous rights. A responsibility to meet climate targets. A responsibility to keep the country unified. A responsibility to ensure Canadians can afford to live in the country we're shaping. The truth is, Canada has never had to balance all of these forces simultaneously, not with this level of scrutiny, urgency, or legal complexity.

That's why the future doesn't feel obvious right now. It feels heavy, consequential, and it'll be honest. In moments like this, I believe bold thinking matters, not reckless thinking, not ideological thinking, but bold thinking, because we are living in a time where productivity is slipping. Inflation has eaten into every paycheck. The cost of living is suffocating families, and entire generations feel locked out of home ownership. When people are struggling to build a life in the country their parents and grandparents once thrived in, staying small and safe isn't leadership. It's stagnation. Bold thinking doesn't mean one answer.

It means refusing to accept that any one answer is enough. It means imagining a future where economic opportunity doesn't come at the expense of the climate. Where indigenous sovereignty isn't treated as an obstacle, but as the foundation of any major project. Where environmental protection isn't a buzzword and national security isn't a talking point. Where Canada can build big things again, clean things, strong things, smart things, without tearing itself apart. we don't know yet whether the pipeline will be built we don't know whether alberta ottawa british columbia and coastal first nations will find a path forward and we don't know what our energy landscape will look like 10 or 20 years out from now but we do know this Canada can't afford

to think small anymore not with the challenges we're facing no what the stakes we're carrying The choice in front of us isn't simply pipeline or no pipeline. The choice is whether we're going to think big, plan long term, and act together, or whether we'll keep repeating the same patterns that have held this country back for decades. Whatever we decide, it has to be grounded in honesty, partnership, and courage, because the world isn't waiting for Canada to figure itself out. The next generation can't afford for us to get this wrong. That's where we are in a moment that demands caution, cooperation, and yes, boldness.

And what comes next, we'll say more about Canada than any pipeline ever could.