The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Your Turn -- A New Oil Pipeline, Yes or No?

Episode Date: November 27, 2025

On the day a memorandum of understanding is about to be signed between Alberta and Canada, listeners to the Bridge have their say about a new pipeline to British Columbia's west coast. None of the writers are shy about their opinions and both sides of the argument are reflected. And then, the Random Ranter drops by with his take on a very different issue. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. It's Thursday. That means your turn, the question of the week. How do you feel about a new pipeline to the West Coast? That's coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Thursday. Your turn, plus the random ranter will be by as well.

He's got an... He's got an interesting little rant today. Your question, though, and you delivered once again lots of answers, so I want to get right to them because we'll never get through them all. And that's even the ones that made the cut. I'd be surprised if we get through to the mall. The question was simply, what would you change, if anything, in the Prime Minister's apparent offer?

memorandum of understanding between Ottawa and Edmonton, Canada, and Alberta on the possibility of a new pipeline to the West Coast. That'll be coming out later today, but we know the rough details on this, and therefore you've been asked the question. So let's get right to it, and perhaps not surprisingly, almost half the letters this week came from British Columbia. The second most represented province, again, perhaps not surprisingly, was Alberta. Now, we did get answers from right across the country, but those were the most dominant ones. Let's start with Darcy Raynard in Edmonton. As a lifelong, Albertan, I don't want to hear another word about pipelines.

Wind and solar are banned. We're paying oil companies to clean up wells. Our education and health care systems are being destroyed so they can be privatized. It's massive social programs for oil companies and United Conservative Party donors, while it's late-stage capitalism for everyone else. I'm going to identify as a barrel of oil, so maybe my government might care about me. Tim Stott in Minnesota, Manitoba.

Canada has an investment and an economic problem. Canadians enjoy health care, social programs, safety and security, no matter what political stripe. In order to pay for these services, we had better get our resources to tidewater, And I think maybe some people in the federal government are starting to realize this. Josh Como in Montreal. There are no plausible conditions under which Carney should support a new pipeline.

Our climate is more valuable than any short-term profit from a new pipeline, and I don't buy the premise that we can offset the harm with carbon capture. The best way to reduce greenhouse gases is to keep the carbon in the ground. Let's focus on the future. renewable energy. Vicki Clark in Paradise, Newfoundland. My conditions for supporting any new pipeline are this. A fully private proponent with no federal funding.

Full First Nations consent. Permanent land lease payments to affect First Nations and to British Columbia. Alberta must invest in carbon capture and provide an end-of-life plan. A federal revenue share from oil sales. and a Canadian-only hiring requirement for all construction and operations. Kyle 80 in Peterborough, Ontario. I would need the following, answered first. Will the pipeline be built by Republican backing Houston-based Kinder Morgan?

When input from indigenous groups is ignored and protests arise, how much will it cost taxpayers in RCMP deployments and legal fees? How much do the oil companies stand to profit? compared to how little they pay in tax. Are private oil sector jobs more important than public health and education jobs? Will the pipeline be forest fire resistant? John Sutherland in Calgary Under no conditions should Mark Carney agree to a new northern pipeline across BC.

As an Albertan since 1967, having worked for a major oil company, I believe the purpose of exporting more oil sands oil is strictly for the benefit of the producers and not for the benefit of the citizens of this province. Why should we be selling more of our resource at cheap prices to enrich oil companies? Edith Krauss in Langley, BC. A pipeline to BC's north coast is useless

without lifting the tanker ban. There is no political compromise that can alter the navigational hazards. I'm sorry, I'm not from, I'm never sure how to pronounce this. Hecate Strait, the most treacherous waterway in Canada. The risk of a diluted bitumen spill to the north coast, vital to the lives of coastal First Nations and BC's economy,

is too great. So no, there are no conditions under which this pipeline would be acceptable. Nick Delah Peruta, in Vancouver. I would 100% support a pipeline to Tidewater in northern BC if we could ship refined product. Refine the bitumen in a state-of-the-art new environmentally friendly facility in British Columbia or Alberta.

Then ship safe, refined product to Asia. Dave Call in Wallisburg, Ontario. Energy is the engine that drives the Canadian economy. Additional pipelines will reduce our reliance on exports to the USA and open new opportunities elsewhere. It's in the country's economic best interest to build more pipelines, and it's up to the Prime Minister to make it happen. Robert Jones in Amhertsburg, Ontario.

Conditions I would want Mark Carney to agree to affected First Nations giving free, prior, and informed consent with meaningful equity ownership. The pipeline meets the world's strictest environmental standards under independent oversight. We use best available spill prevention and response technology. Substantial revenue pays for indigenous-led conservation and Canada's environmental priorities.

Jobs created go to residents of Alberta, BC, and indigenous nations. Canada can provide all those benefits, so let's do this. John Kelly in St. Andrews, New Brunswick. The Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world, the Bay Intersects with the St. Excuse me, the Bay intersects, where the St. John River at the world-famous reversing falls. Irving Oil, Canada's largest oil refinery,

has unloaded and loaded oil supertankers daily at this tidal intersection for 50 years without any major mishap. Canaport, that's the name of the terminal, has been constructed and maintained to be tide-resistant. Tankers are navigated by experienced pilots. This can be duplicated on the B.C. Northern Coast. Jane Keist in Canmore, Alberta. Here's her list of conditions.

Approval from all First Nations affected. Legally of maintaining the ban of tankers in dangerous Acades Strait. legally binding contracts, ensuring full payment of all development operations. Disaster recovery costs by private corporations without government subsidies or bailouts. Alberta and Canada publicly respecting BC, fully honoring existing agreements with First Nations, which allowed current energy transport to tidewater, including Alberta's resources already employed. thousands. Alberta reinstating renewable energy industries and charter rights. Nathaniel Hayes, he's writing from Kobe, Japan, but he's originally from Victoria.

My conditions for a BC North Coast pipeline would be agreement from the BC government and all the first peoples that the pipeline would impact, especially coastal first nations. If it's a team Canada argument for why the pipeline is necessary, Why is Alberta not pushing east? BC had a pipeline forced on it. Time for Eastern Canada to step up in Saskatchewan seems eager for a pipeline. Maggie Wilson in Sydney, BC. Under no conditions would I want any agreements in principle or otherwise for a pipeline in northern BC.

There's too much to lose and too little to gain. We need to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible, not continue to expand their use. John Heron in Victoria, under no circumstances, should Mark Carney agree to any new pipeline, oil pipeline, construction from Alberta to B.C. Tidewater. The twinning of the existing TMX pipeline and resulting increase in tanker traffic already further threatens the fragile ecosystem of the Wanda Fouca Strait. The current Alberta government that acts like a petulant child should instead focus on increasing investment in geothermal, wind and solar, providing good clean energy jobs for a better future. And Patterson Welsh in Parksville, BC.

There would be no conditions under which I would want Mark Carney to agree in principle to a new oil pipeline. I grew up in Prince Rupert and remember the Gale Force winds. It's not if but when there will be an oil spill. This decision impacts our most important relationships with each other, indigenous peoples and the land and wildlife. Good relationships are not luxuries in these dark times. They are life-sustaining.

Doug Moore in Nunus Bay, BC, that's on the east coast of southern Vancouver Island, about a half hour north of Nanaimal. My condition for building any pipeline in Canada is that acknowledging risk and addressing environmental and indigenous concerns, it must be good for the country, provide good-paying jobs and provide much-needed tax revenue to fund government programs such as defense, infrastructure, and health care. Governments must decide what is best for the future of the country and be prepared to make an unpopular decision because either way, there will be happy and, unhappy people. Colleen Lamoth in East Vancouver. There are absolutely no acceptable conditions

the Prime Minister can agree to to allow tankers off the coast of Hidaleguay. The waters have massive swells and require dangerous 90-degree turns an unavoidable risk. It would be a death sentence for this pristine coast. Unless you've visited or are from BC, it's hard for Canadians to grasp

how catastrophic this way. would, not could, be. John Minchell in Comox Valley, BC, first reaction, no conditions acceptable, no pipeline. My BC bias is acknowledged. Stuart Pankowski in Edmonton. I'm a third-generation Albertan. There are absolutely no circumstances

under which Carney should agree to this pipeline. Most people in BC don't want it, and there is no viable private sector business case. Our Premier was a registered oil and gas lobbyist starting in 2019. As far as I can tell, she's still primarily performing that job. Mochia in Bradford, Ontario, but now are north of Toronto. The only condition Mark Carney needs is that the oil companies must guarantee payment for every spill. No excuses.

If they refuse to guarantee it, it's an admission the pipeline itself is unsafe. too costly to clean up. Canadians should not bear the risk while corporations pocket any subsidies. Either back it up with a guarantee or confess that pipelines are garbage and the danger is greater than any subsidy can justify. Matt McDonald in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia.

Only Canada would continue the stupidity we have demonstrated over the past 10 years to deny the world our oil and gas with any number of excuses. Canada should build pipelines to boost energy security, create jobs, and strengthen trade. The real tension is between economic growth through resource development and long-term climate stability.

Pipelines represent immediate jobs and energy security, while net zero represents a very expensive pipe dream. Adam McBurney he's in the Bruce Jack mining camp excuse me the Bruce Jack mining camp in northern BC Bruce Jack is a gold and silver mine

way up there more than a thousand kilometers north of the tree line yeah that's north I support a new pipeline agreement by Carney on the condition that the pipeline not be used or better yet on the condition that it not be completed

As a morale building exercise, it's useful. As an energy strategy, it is regressive. If we build, we maintain unity. If we don't use it, we keep tankers off our coast and environmentalists off our back. In principle, it's unifying. In reality, it's divisive. Austin Ziegler in Toronto.

I would be in favor if the pipeline has agreed by all of the first nations who are currently opposed to it, and that those first nations hold at least 66% of ownership. It should also be funded mostly with private funds. Fran Wallace and Victoria, B.C. I wasn't worried about the pipeline MOU until hearing leaked details on Tuesday. Until then, I thought Carney truly meant what he said about ensuring all parties need to be brought onside to support major national

projects. I figured he was just downloading the responsibility of saying no to the pipeline to others. He'd look great to Albertans for being supportive, knowing full well it wasn't ultimately going to succeed, how naive I was. Actually, Fran, let's wait for the real details. You know, leaked stuff. There's a reason for leaking. When people leak, it's usually because they have an agenda themselves. But let's see. we're going to know later today the exact details Christa's Naves in Toronto

The onus for a new pipeline ought to be twofold A ready customer, preferably not American And the consent of the landholder I think there's a bunch of hyperbole Around pipelines Eclipsing other issues that are infinitely more salient to Canadians

High-speed transit from Toronto to Montreal will affect more of us by far year-round infrastructure in the north will change the lives of those who live there. We're more important than just pipelines. Neil Douglas Fraser in Edmonton There are no conditions under which a new Alberta-B-C. pipeline should be approved. Alberta already has an expanded, publicly funded pipeline to the West Coast, yet our provincial government blocks clean energy investment

while insisting on propping up fossil fuels. With the climate crisis now visibly reshaping daily life, approving another pipeline would undermine indigenous reconciliation, ignore the urgency of energy diversification, and fail Canadians who deserved leadership focused on the future, rather than the past. John Dunn in Caldy, Alberta, west of Lusbridge. I spent the latter part of my career

developing a proposed natural gas pipeline to Prince Rupert. First Nations support for any linear infrastructure project is essential, if not determinative. But those claiming such support is impossible for a new oil pipeline should know that both the TMX and coastal gas link pipeline projects achieved it. These projects create opportunities for indigenous businesses, build stronger communities,

and help deliver economic independence, aspirations shared by Canadians everywhere. Dennis O'Sullivan in Mississauga, Ontario. I do not support the construction of the proposed pipeline to Prince Rupert from Alberta if it involves substantial government investment. The Keystone XL pipeline, halted by President Biden in 2021, should be resumed. It's beneficial to both countries.

The cost for completion is a reliably known figure at $9 billion. And best of all, I believe it could be done with private, not government, money. Donald Trump is in favor of it. Or at least he was the last time he was asked about it. Sean Aiken in Whitby, Ontario. The rare spirit bear lives only in the Great Bear rainforest and relies on healthy oceans and a diet of salmon. An oil spill is BC's burden, not Alberta's.

However, if BC were to receive very lucrative royalties and the pipeline was the best and safest in the world and any tankers were a modern double-hulled version with an abundance of tugs and other safeguards in place, it might succeed. Josh Winters in Surrey, BC. As someone who lives beside the original Trans Mountain Pipeline, my concern isn't about the new line Alberta once built.

It's what happens once the oil reaches our coast. Tankers would have to travel through the Hecate Strait. A region Environment Canada calls the most dangerous body of water in Canada and the fourth most dangerous in the world. My question is, would Alberta commit to covering the cost of an oil spill or will British Columbians be left to clean up the mess? James Altie in Howden, Manitoba, south of Winnipeg. Pipeline projects in Canada involve environmental, indigenous, economic, and political issues.

Since not all concerns can be fully addressed, decisions should follow the Do No Harm framework, focusing on minimizing negative impacts based on local contexts. While on the topic, a pipeline to the East Coast could reduce our dependence on foreign boatloads of less desirable heavy crude oil, expand eastern domestic refining capacity and increase Canadian exports helping to balance environmental and economic priorities. Mark Engelden in Barrier, BC. This is not negotiable.

The world's fourth most dangerous coast is in a mountainous remote location, not serviced by roads or any other infrastructure. A spill would poison the area for generations. If Carney wants to divide Canada, pick this issue. Okay, we're going to take a break. You know, once again, we've received so many letters. What I really like about them and what I really like about listening to you each week,

is even though it sort of boils down to on Ford, I'm against it, after that, there's all kinds of different arguments put forward, and you do it so well. So it's a pleasure for me to read these letters, both pro and con, although clearly most are con today. We'll get back to your letters in a couple of minutes' time. We're going to take a break, and then we're going to listen to the random ranter. It's not about pipelines.

But it's pretty interesting, nevertheless. We'll do all that. Right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to The Bridge for this Thursday. That means it's your turn. Your answers to the question of the week about pipelines. You're listening on Series X-M.

Channel 167 Canada Talks are on your favorite podcast platform. Every week of this time, we bring in our friend, The Random Ranter. The Rantor lives in Western Canada, the prairies, to be more specific. And he has, you know, he's not associated with any media organization, other than us, I guess. He's not associated with any political party. He's just, as we like to say, he's just a guy. He has a job on the prairies. He travels a lot between communities.

He listens to a lot of people. He gets in conversations with a lot of people. And he has opinions. He's not shy about his opinions. And so we give him a chance to hear them once a week. So here we go with this week's Random Rantters Rant. Go for us. my friend.

When I was going to school, the first spectrum we learned about was the light spectrum. You'd shine a light through a prism and magically all the colors of the rainbow would appear. It was amazing. And to remember it, we were taught an acronym, Roy G. Biv. Now, Roy G. Biv was and is easy to remember. And even though the human eye can see up to 10 million different colors on the light, spectrum, Roy G. Biv has sufficed for generations. Now, hopefully you can see where I'm going with this, and you can see that I have no issues

with spectrums of any kind, but I do have some issues with acronyms, specifically when it comes to the spectrum of sexuality. What started as LGBT, turned into LGBTQ, and then eventually to LGBTQ plus, and after that, the changes started picking up. some real momentum. The other day I read an article on the CBC that referred to the sexual spectrum as 2-S-L-G-B-T-Q-Q-I-A-plus. And honestly, something inside of me broke a little bit.

I mean, that acronym is asking too much. How am I supposed to remember all that? Now, I'm not denying anything of anyone on that spectrum. I'm just saying the acronym itself, it's way too long. And here's the kicker. It's not even the longest acronym I've come across, because if you do a little digging, at 12 letters, there's LGBTQ-Q-I-P-2-S-A-A. And at a whopping 16 letters, there's LGBT-I-Q-C-A-P-G-G-F-N-F-N-B-A.

Now, I'm not breaking it down. I don't care if you're on that spectrum or off that spectrum. I don't care if you're a second G or a C or if you want to buy a vowel. This has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with branding. Acronyms should be used to shorten terms and make them more concise. Really successful acronyms are easy to say and easy to remember. FYI, they include organizations like NATO, NASA, and UNICEF. Sometimes acronyms are so good, we forget.

get their acronyms like radar or taser or spam. But LGBTIQ-C-A-G-G-F-N-F-N-B-A, to me, that's a real W-T-F. It's neither clear nor concise. It's bewildering. And for a term that's supposed to be so inclusive, it feels pretty cleekish. I mean, I challenge even the wokenest of the woke to figure out what that, 3G stands for. It's too much, which brings me to the flag.

What happened to the simple rainbow? I understood that rainbow. It was perfectly symbolic. It conveyed meaning. It was truly a triumph of simplicity in design. So clear, so clean, but the pride flag now, it's TMI. Because every letter in the entire LGBT, IQ, Q, C, AP, G, N, G-F-N-B-A seemingly needed to be represented.

I mean, whoever designed it had to know it was extreme when they ran out of colors and had to resort to introducing shapes and the results? Well, to me, it's exactly what you would expect from an LGBTIQ-C-A-P-G-G-F-N-BA or even a 2-S-L-L-L-G-T-Q-Q-I-A- Plus flag would look like. Now, again, I'm not knocking what that flag stands for, only how it looks, and it don't look good. Now, I understand, I don't have a dog in the fight. The closest I get to being represented by a rainbow is the packaging on a loaf of wonder bread. That's why I've always tried to stay respectful and keep up on my LGBTs and cues.

I want to say it right. I really do. I want to show respect. But, and here I go again, LGBTIQ-C-A-G-G-G-F-N-G-F-N-B-A, it might stand for something, but as an acronym, it's ridiculous. It's multitudes harder than any of my passwords.

It's like it's some kind of impossible captia. Well, I'm not a robot. I need something I can't possibly screw up. Not a dog's breakfast of letters, numbers, and symbols. Look, I can't possibly understand what it's like growing up in this world is any one of those letters. I imagine it's tough. And when you finally are able to embrace your true self, it must feel so liberating. Finding your community must be so empowering.

I'm happy for you. Everyone deserves joy and acceptance. But no one deserves an acronym like, and here I go one last time, LGBTQ C-A-G-G-G-G-F-N-G-F-N-B-A. I'm truly sorry for saying that so many times. But I figure even if the hardest of the hardcore hear it enough, they'll see my point. You know, you don't really believe him when he says,

I'm really sorry for having to do this one more time. Don't get me wrong. The Random Rancher, with one we won't forget, even if we couldn't repeat that acronym ourselves, no matter how many times we tried. Good news. I finally looked up the proper pronunciation of Heckett Street. That's not Hecate. Hecatee. It's Hecett.

Simple. It's the Hecett straight. Back to our letters on this week's question. Carolyn Boyce from Namao, Alberta, just north of Edmonton. I don't believe there should be a pipeline in northern B.C., regardless of the conditions Mark Carney puts on it. The location is not suitable as well, if the deal includes Danielle Smith. She's proven herself to me to be untrustworthy.

Deb Johnson in Edmonton. Should Mark Carney agree to a new pipeline? Short answer, no. But if there is a proven economic reason to do it that is not founded on political favors, if there's agreement that the proportion of federal and provincial investment equals what will be designated to go back to taxpayers, if there are no loopholes for pipeline owners

to avoid paying for any accidents on abandoned infrastructure cleanup, then I might change my answer. Ravi Ravishankar in Ottawa. As an environmental engineer who is currently helping to clean up oil pipeline-related land and coastal contaminations in West Africa, I have a realistic view of the pros and cons of such pipeline projects. These projects are technically feasible and can be operated safely and successfully in Canada with effective regulatory oversight. The key condition is to have buy-ins.

from the relevant indigenous communities and the province of BC. Otherwise, these projects will fail. Brian Hoyle in Bedford, Nova Scotia. Alberta will need to secure agreements with indigenous peoples and the BC government. Negotiations will drag on and ultimately fail. But meaningful environmental changes will have been legislated and enacted as one of the prerequisites to any federal commitment. Kudos to the Prime Minister.

He achieves desirable climate-related change, helps placate sovereignness Albertans, and strengthens his national popularity, all while knowing that the pipeline will never happen. Sorry, Premier Smith, but you're being played. Jonathan Hamilton in Carstairs, Alberta, a little north of Calgary. If Alberta can ask for a pipeline and the feds say yes, even though BC and the coastal First Nations say, know, then everyone east of Hardesty, that's about 100 kilometers from the Saskatchewan border, should be subject to the same. If it's Canada's resource, and we all benefit from it, a no on one side of the country is as valuable or worthless as a no on the other side. John White in Montreal

From what I understand, China is making great inroads creating a solar panel infrastructure, and electric car culture in China, as well as exploring or exporting solar power infrastructure to places like Pakistan. It seems like pipeline building pipelines is an expenditure that is not cognizant of a diminishing future market for oil. Are we being non-strategic

in trying to accommodate the resource base of Alberta when we should be focusing on alternative energy sources? Randy Nessett in Victoria I would not support a northern pipeline I could support increasing the Trans Mountain Pipeline which I understand would be cheaper and not spoil northern BC waters by the time it would be built oil will be on the decline especially the dirty oil sands oil

I lived in Alberta for 38 years and worked in the oil industry I don't believe Carney can appease Alberta They won't elect liberals. Ron Mayett in Moncton. Carney is surprising me by carrying out his promise to not only export our resources but develop an energy strategy to enable Canada to become self-sufficient.

Well done. I do not have a lot of good to say about BC Premier Eby. His winning is becoming hard to listen to. Well, it says winning, but I think he's talking about whining. um yeah Liz McCory and Regina there are no conditions under which I would support a pipeline

to the northern coast of BC it's too dangerous to the environment First Nations are opposed and I don't believe that the markets for oil will be there when the pipeline would be built Sarah Allinger and New Westminster, BC didn't we Canadian taxpayers just buy Alberta a pipeline

and now they're demanding another one? I'd say no, unless it has the full support of the BC government and all affected First Nations, at a bare minimum. Ideally, the agreement would also include some significant benefit for the rest of the country and a promise that Alberta won't come back to us hat and hand in another seven years. Rachel McDonnell in Victoria As a west coaster, there are absolutely no conditions. period. Bitumen oil does not dissipate in the water. It would sink to the bottom of the sea.

Why risk the very real potential for a catastrophic oil spill like Exxon Valdez? The tanker band was put in place because of the treacherous waters off the Hecett Strait. An oil spill would devastate one of the last pristine intact watersheds of the world. It makes absolutely no sense to jeopardize the lucrative green initiatives already agreed upon by our First Nations, the real stewards of this territory. Now, some of you may need some brief reminding. The Exxon Valdez was a tanker owned by Exxon that ran a ground in March of 1989 in the Gulf of Alaska, More than 41 million liters of crude oil spilled, polluting more than 2,000 kilometers of indented shoreline, as well as adjacent waters.

The spill killed untold numbers of salmon, herring, sea otters, bald eagles, and killer whales. Suzanne Ketley in Ottawa, people who monitor the energy transitioners saying, our oil-producing provinces, are going to be losing a lot of their oil and gas revenues within the next decade and there's no business case for a new pipeline. If I were Kearney, I would ask Danielle Smith to start investing in renewables to ensure Albertans have more diversified revenue in the future.

Mitchell Lechner in Montreal Under no circumstances should we build new pipelines anywhere in Canada. Climate change is a scientific, fact. Burning oil is one of the biggest drivers of climate change. The planet is heating up dangerously and we need to stop increasing the levels of carbon dioxide in the air now. Building a pipeline that will last for decades is the last thing we should do. We need to find solutions, not exacerbate problems. Carol Vio in North Vancouver. Canada is embarking on a significant project.

My dream condition, the PM and federal and provincial governments look at the problem with sound project management practices. The first step is always to identify the true nature of the problem. Begin by asking why, define the genuine purpose and benefits Canada seeks. If the answer is still pipeline, great. If not, stop. David Oliver in Victoria, how ironic that on the day I listened to Moore Butts, discussing why it is so hard to build pipelines in Canada, I heard Bill McKibben, he's an American

environmentalist, on CBC Radio's The Current, explaining that solar energy is now so cheap, all other methods of generation are effectively obsolete. So no, there are no circumstances under which I would accept a pipeline. Sensible people in Alberta and elsewhere are installing solar panels. Frank Wang and Surrey, BC, the only circumstance under which I would accept a northern BC pipeline is if the Alberta government can also propose a viable pipeline through Quebec. If pipelines are so easy and fall under federal jurisdiction, why don't Premier Smith and P.M. Carney try to bully their way through Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec? Brandon Welch in Victoria. My four conditions, there's a reliable

demand for more oil from Canada. Existing pipelines in Canada are being used effectively. Three, there is sufficient support for the pipeline from all parties involved. And four, there is sufficient private capital investment to avoid excessive government subsidies. Alan Box in Comox, BC, Mark Carney should not agree under any circumstances. A new Alberta northern BC pipeline would lock Canada in, to further investment in long-term fossil fuel infrastructure as global demand declines. Even with safeguards, the B.C. coast would be exposed to unimaginable spill and coastal risk.

It's likely the pipeline would also divert capital from clean fuel development and undermine both Canada's climate goals and its posture as a clean energy world leader. West Hargraves in Vancouver I want proven world-class spill remediation in place and BC to get some money recognizing the risk to our North Coast. Interesting when it comes to oil revenue, it's Alberta's, but when we talk about our BC coasts and pipelines, it's Canada's. Alberta's sense of entitlement is grating at best.

Alex, Texas in Surrey, BC. Carney must accept Alberta's West Coast Pipeline without conditions or delay. This is not a negotiable project. It is Canada's last bulwark against dismemberment. Deny it and Alberta walks. A landlock resentful republic emerges and a weakened Canada slides inexorably into American absorption. Build it now or preside over the end of Confederation.

You don't hear that argument very often from our British Columbian, but Alex. Alex certainly is feeling that way. Linda Hepworth in Erdry, Alberta. As a former BC resident, the conditions that I would expect to see would be complete agreement from the BC government, all indigenous nations, and a large majority of BC citizens. To think of going ahead with this project without this is insane. Robert Lockhart in Annasmore, Ontario, near Peterborough.

There are no circumstances under which a new pipeline can be justified. The impact on CO2 emissions of shipping oil to another part of the world and burning it is higher than burning it in Canada. Thankfully, the business case will conclude that by the time the pipeline could be completed, tar sands oil will cost more to extract than the world price. Annie Trepenier in Montreal, under no conditions, you heard Chantal, that place is for paddling and needs to be preserved. Brent Bush in the Nimo, BC,

I can't think of any good reason for building another pipeline. Aren't we supposed to be moving towards eliminating the use of fossil fuels? Building another pipeline would set us back in achieving that goal, which I believe is extremely important for the future. Kathleen Irwin in Vancouver, I'm against a new pipeline, however, I will accept one in the interest of the Canadian economy if Prime Minister Carney and Premier Smith come to a negotiated agreement with Premier E.B. and Indigenous stakeholders.

Canada is in a difficult situation, but if projects of national interests is used as a means of pushing this through without B.C.'s agreement, the Liberals will lose my vote in the next election. Dylan May in Victoria. Canada has always benefited from the protection of a superpower. First, it was the British Empire, then the United States. We now must truly stand on our own for the first time.

10% of Canada's GDP is tied to energy. We must realize that eating our cake and having it too just isn't going to work in this nation anymore. We're on our own. Nick Appleby in Wakefield, Ontario, or Wakefield, Quebec. I don't think Canada should ever allow another oil pipeline to be built. Alberta should have put some money in the bank during the last decades of oil production, like Norway did.

Tar sands belong with coal in the past. It's time for all provinces to get on board with manufacturing, installing, and subsidizing renewable energy. The time has come to move forward. Why is our government going backward? Jules Hughes in Toronto. Indigenous buy-in only would make me a supporter

of the Northern Gateway Pipeline. This could be a means to generational prospect, and agency from the federal government for these communities. I'm disgusted that First Nations have been treated as an afterthought. We're backtracking. Got time for a couple more.

On Ben Svi in Quitlam, B.C. Regarding First Nations, I heard an interview with a First Nations chief on CBC speaking about the pipeline. She said, no way, never. The explanation was spiritual, eternal in its nature. It's enagalus.

Enagalus. I'm never going to get that word right. Anologous to our PM, saying to Trump, some things are not for sale. I remember that. Lawrence Rainey in Muscoe, Ontario. No to the Northern Gateway Pipeline. and build one over to Churchill, Manitoba,

which has a far simpler route to tidewater. The Northwest Passage is increasingly open in both directions, simpler and with way fewer political and provincial obstacles. You won't hear me arguing against Churchill. Janice Moore in Victoria. From what I've gathered, carbon capture at a significant scale is not effective enough to prevent the acceleration of atmospheric warming. what part of these facts do homo sapiens not understand homo sapiens are intelligent enough to commit suicide are they intelligent enough to not commit suicide

michael mercier in maple ridge bc only condition force one through quebec first it's important to distinguish between pipelines and what is shipped through them sometimes we must take risks but not when the consequences are too great All pipelines leak and spill, and yes, oil tankers have accidents. Canadians need to be educated on how valuable this part of the country is. It needs to be protected at all costs. Alberta oil is the dirtiest, most toxic in the world. Ron Achtimichuk in Suk, B.C. It's a southern tip of Vancouver Island. Beautiful. Start with the geography lessons Elizabeth May

directed at Danielle Smith and Andrew Shear. The Hecett Strait is a shallow but dangerous body of water that has been protected by a moratorium between the provincial and federal governments since 1972. Without the Haida Nation support, there's no project. I think Daniel Smith would better serve her province by supporting the TMX expansion.

Here we go with the last letter this weekend. The author is from Fernie, BC. That's the East Cootney region of southern British Columbia, and her name is Jill Snell. While moving more Alberta oil to market would benefit Canada's economy, federal funds might be better used to expand refining capacity in Alberta for domestic use. This would create jobs, strengthen fuel security, and avoid both the tanker ban issue and a pipeline through coastal First Nations lands. There you go. A lot of letters this week. And as I said at the beginning, most from BC, more from BC than anywhere else. And that's not surprising. And second most from

Alberta, and that's not surprising. But also a lot from different parts of the country. And we appreciate them all. And I hope you'll excuse. me for the words I booted in this. At least I learned in the last hour how to properly pronounce the heckett straight. Although I'm quite prepared to get letters saying, no, actually, Peter, it's not Hecket, it's such and such. But I'm going from what I read during the ranter.

Heckett. Anyway, as always, thank you so much. free letters this week. It's made a real contribution to our discussion, which will be able to fill in a lot of the blanks later today when the actual memorandum of understanding is put forward by Mark Carney and Daniel Smith. And we'll see just what is engraved in stone and what is basically still negotiable depending on how certain things play out over the the next while. So let's see that before we draw any final conclusions,

but you've given us lots to think about, as you always do, on your turn. And so is the random ranter. Can you name those 16 letters in the order? I don't think so. All right, tomorrow. Good talk, Chantelle-A-Bear, Bruce Anderson, and you can be sure you can bet we're going to be talking about

the MOU and the fallout from it because there's lots of fallout from these past few days how much fallout will there be after we know the real details and not just the leaked version always beware of leaked stories this is always a reason to leak there's always an agenda I'm not against leak documents, I'm just saying. You've got to be fully understanding of what that actually means. Okay, and that's going to wrap it for today. I'm Peter Manspich. Thanks so much for listening, as always.

Appreciate your time. And appreciate the fact that so many of you will be back again. and less than 24 hours. Bye for now.