The Current - Can Mark Carney balance Canada’s economy and climate goals?

Episode Date: November 14, 2025

As the prime minister unveils Ottawa's second list of “nation-building” projects, he continues to signal the direction he wants Canada to take when it comes to boosting the economy and meeting climate commitments.

Kids these days, people say we have so much more. Smartphones, video games, treats, and busy schedules. But more isn't always better. Because kids these days, we also have more health challenges than ever before. More mental health issues. More need for life-saving surgeries. And more complex needs. Chio has a plan to transform pediatric care for kids like me.

Join us. Because kids these days, we need you more than ever. Donate at GeoFoundation.com. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. Prime Minister, Mark Carney, says he wants to make Canada into an energy superpower, and he has identified a new batch of projects that Ottawa wants to fast-track through its major projects' office. They include a critical mineral corridor in Canada's northwest, a transmission line in that same region,

an indigenous-powered LNG facility in British Columbia, and several critical mineral mines. Here's Mark Carney yesterday, speaking about those choices. The first objective, the first principle of these projects is it's in the interests of Canada, making us stronger, making it more independent, the interests of indigenous peoples, the interest of building a more sustainable society. For more on how those projects fit into Canada's broader economic and climate goals, I'm joined by Deborah Yedlin. She is the president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

Catherine Harrison is a political science professor at the University of British Columbia. and Rachel Doran as executive director of Clean Energy Canada, a think tank at Simon Fraser University. She's with me in our Toronto studio. Good morning to you all. Good morning. Good morning. The Prime Minister seems to be trying to do a couple of different things at the same time, Rachel.

What if you take a look at this list, what does it say to you about the government's direction on balancing climate and energy? Well, I think we knew leading to this budget and all the announcements around projects, The prime minister is sort of rebranding the approach of Canada to be about carbon competitiveness, climate competitiveness. And we've been keeping track. You know, when you look at that list, you know, what's maybe not getting the news is that eight out of 11 of the projects that have been announced to date really are leaning into this emerging clean economy. So things like power projects, transmission, critical minerals you mentioned. You know, and I think that that's essential. We're sitting in this moment in time where climate action can be economic action.

10 of our largest non-U.S. trading partners still have industrial pricing. They still have net zero commitments in this era where we're trying to reduce dependency on the U.S. and ship more elsewhere, making sure we're building into those clean supply chains and providing the products that will both decarbonize and electrify our world, but also hopefully set Canada up for economic success is an important recipe here. Maybe what we should, I hope, talk about a little bit is, you know, when we used to talk about climate action, there's some other important. pieces to ensure citizens benefit. And we're keeping some of that other actions on the go, helping households and others kind of engage in climate and electrification. And so, you know, maybe a little bit less of that focus these days. Could I just be quickly, you mentioned rebranding. Your organization is nonpartisan, but it used to work in the Trudeau government. Do you see this as a break from the past?

So I do work for a nonpartisan organization these days. But I will say, you know, looking at this is still a liberal government, but I think we're seeing a shift in how, you know, this topic is being spoken about and being engaged with. But I would say, you know, that maybe isn't just one government versus another. It's also the stage of time we're at, you know, 10 to 10 years that happened since the first Paris Agreement. We've seen a trillion dollars flow out into clean technology investment. We've seen costs come down on things like renewables up to 90 percent since. 2010. You know, I think if we talked about this a decade ago, it would have been hard to say, you know, you're doing all these things for economic reasons, but today it's genuinely

doing them for economic reasons. And that's really, I think, both in narratively and in actions to date how this prime minister is kind of seeing his role. Catherine, do you want to pick up on the rebranding thing? There was an interview that the prime minister did a few weeks back with Michelle Hassan on Bloomberg in which she talked about his past. He was a guy who headed up cop meetings on net zero. He was the special UN envoy championing climate action. And she said, what happened to you? Do you see this, when you take a look at this list,

is this the same Mark Carney of the past, Catherine? It's hard to say. I mean, I think there's definitely a focus on investment and economic transition. But I think consistent with a new moment, greater public concern about affordability and, of course, the threat of tariffs from the U.S. Trump administration,

We are seeing this government respond not just with those investments in a clean energy transition, renewables, transmission lines, critical minerals, but also embracing LNG and describing it as part of the clean transitions, describing it as a clean fuel. So I think that is new and something of a surprise and kind of worrying because it is locking us in to continue. dependence on that particular fossil fuel, potentially for decades to come. Deborah, what do you think the Prime Minister is signaling with these projects? Well, the Prime Minister is signaling that we need to increase our economic growth, that the resource sector writ large is really a sector of the economy where we can realize that economic growth, whether it's critical minerals, whether it's oil and gas, you know, there's others too, there's forestry.

and that's what we have to focus on. We have to focus on increasing our economic sovereignty. We have to increase production of what the rest of the world wants from us. That also includes agriculture. And that's the way we deal with linking ourselves and being so dependent on a very unpredictable trading partner. Where does climate fit into that? Well, I think, you know, we often look at the climate question and say, so I agree with the comment about the,

the increased production in critical minerals, I will say it's a bit of a pyric victory if we get there because we don't have smelting capacity and we still have to send it to China to be processed. So that's a different conversation. However, when you think about the fact that 1,400 coal plants are planned to be built in China and you think about what LNG could offset

in terms of that fuel source and the fact that Canada's LNG is 50% less carbon-intensive than every other LNG right now being produced on the planet, you say, okay, this is something that we can continue to do, that we will continue to provide this, to provide LNG to parts of the world that we know need it. And at the same time, we benefit from it as a country from the development of those resources. What we have to remember is a national policy is not going to solve global problems. And that's what we've been trying to do. We need to grow our economy and we can do things that offset carbon emissions in other parts of the world as well.

well, carbon molecules don't have passports. Rachel, what do we do about this? I mean, are these projects, what do they mean for the green transition? Because to your point, there are things like critical minerals that are about building batteries that are meant to get us off of fossil fuels, but there's also, and we're going to talk about this, a huge investment in LNG. Square that for me. So I'm hearing maybe two arguments for LNG, and I think one's an economic one and one's

a climate one. Maybe taking the economic one first, you know, it's true that we're anticipating. globally, at least a small increase in LNG demand over the next, like up until 2030, but we're also seeing countries race to try to provide more LNG. And so the amount of LNG overproduction that's anticipated now by 2030 is really going to bring prices down. And I think when we're talking about projects, which potentially have taxpayer dollars at stake, it's important to really think about, you know, is there a risk of stranded assets here? Are we going to be, you know, the provider of choice when there is so much coming online? On the

climate side, I mean, I think, you know, just to be abundantly clear, natural gas is a fossil fuel, it produces emissions when it's burned, it produces emissions, you know, through leakage and methane along the chain. And so an assumption that you are kind of displacing, you know, coal, you know, I think is questionable because things like renewables now are the cheapest source of new electricity production globally, places are choosing sometimes to go straight to renewables from coal rather than LNG. And I think Catherine mentioned this risk of lock-in if we go straight to LNG. Something like critical minerals, we're seeing, you know, at least a tripling of demand anticipated out to 2030. And, you know, I think the way I would really

simplistically look at this is we only have so much time, energy, and resources as a country to be thinking about how we're building our nation. And, you know, we really need to be thinking about what our training partners are going to be wanting more of and where the guarantees are. And that's where we really need to be putting our time and energy. And, you know, really doubling down on industries where there may be oversupply or, you know, demand may be kind of reducing through time is maybe not where we're going to get the best bang for our buck as a country. Kids these days, people say we have so much more. Smartphones, video games, treats, and busy schedules. But more isn't always better. Because kids these days, we also have more health

challenges than ever before. More mental health issues, more need for life-saving surgeries, and more complex needs. Chio has a plan to transform pediatric care for kids like me. Join us, because kids these days, we need you more than ever. Donate at GeoFoundation.com. At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets.

and we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk, business. Catherine, can you give us a flavor of the LNG conversation in British Columbia? The Prime Minister chose to make this announcement in that province.

there are many projects that are BC-based. The NLNG project is based in B.C. It's partnering with a First Nation, but not all indigenous communities are behind this. There are some that are bringing legal challenges to it. So give us a sense as to how these projects, that one in particular, are being received in B.C. I think there's pretty strong support among the general public

for LNG and British Columbia, and that reflects the fact that all of, of the major parties in the province have embraced it for probably 15 years now. BC hopes to get royalties from gas production and create jobs, both at the production end and at the terminal. There has been less indigenous opposition to gas than for oil pipelines, with that caveat that it's not unanimous, and that's really important when it comes to indigenous rights and potential legal challenges.

The two First Nations, the Makatla and the Luxquiloms, have advanced legal challenges of the federal government's approval of that Solisim's project in the North Coast. And I think there's also really limited public awareness of the climate risks. There's this narrative that natural gas will replace coal, and we can have it all. But, I mean, there are potentially huge increases in BC's emissions from the projects that are on the major projects list, especially upstream, but burning gas at the LNG Canada

Terminal. And the projections of growth in gas demand tend to be for scenarios when the planet warms to above 2.5c. So in banking on these projects, we're actually banking on failure to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. And I think that's not widely recognized. Also, big questions about who pays for that new electricity capacity and new fossil fuel subsidies. Do you think the prime minister is going to be able to get, I mean, you're never going to make everybody happy. But to your point, if a majority of the population in the province seems to be supportive of this, but that there are real legal issues when it comes to First Nation buy-in.

How is he going to manage that, do you think? Well, to think about indigenous rights is it's not a matter of public opinion. So if those nations pursue their claims in court, it's going to be decided by the courts, not the political parties, not by the public at large. We did see indigenous opposition to the Trans Mountain Pipeline. And in the end, the Supreme Court, you know, after a second round of consultation, let the project go forward, but with many years of delays to get to that point. So I think that will be the issue of how strongly and how persistent are those indigenous nations in pursuing their arguments against approval of the Silasus Project. Deborah, there is no small element of politics in creating a list like this.

And in Alberta, the Premier's office says that it supports the list, but of course there's no pipeline on the list. And Daniel Smith said yesterday that we will know, these are her words, we will know one way or the other in the coming days, whether or not the Prime Minister Mark Carney and the federal government intends to support Alberta's economic future or if they will continue the failed policies of the last 10 years. What do you think her strategy is here? Well, I think what's been very clear about how this has been progressing in terms of conversations between Ottawa and Alberta is that none of this is happening in public. And it's been very, the conversations have been going on behind closed doors and this is the response that we have. Are you surprised by that? This has been a very public fight in past.

Well, no, I mean, it has been, this is, these ground rules have been very deliberately set. Tim Hodgson came and spoke to the, to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce within day. of being sworn in as minister and he said, I pushed him on a few things and he said, we're not going to negotiate in public. And that's exactly what's been unfolding. So that way you keep control of the conversation and the negotiations going forward. I don't think it was realistic to expect that there would be a pipeline announcement yesterday. The reality is Premier Smith and others are working on a proposal that they are going to put forward and that deadline is May. So you, you don't, if you don't have anything tangible to put forward, then it's hard to say that there

should be a pipeline announcement included in yesterday's project. I think, you know, they are working towards a memorandum of understanding. We know that Grey Cup is Sunday afternoon. That was the goal. And so there's a few, there's a couple more days left. And everybody, we know that there are conversations continuing. People do want to get to a place where there is an opportunity to announce something. But, you know, obviously there are things that have to be negotiated and we'll see what happens in the next couple of days. Is anyone willing to pay for the pipeline? Do we know that yet? Well, I think there's two pieces here. What we need all, in addition, it's a chicken and egg situation because the producers need to also risk, this is about risking

multi-decade capital and providing returns to shareholders and being able to finance the pipeline, etc. And it's not just about the pipeline proponent. It is about the producers as well. And right now, we've not seen, you know, we've seen a lot of sustaining capital in the energy sector, but not a lot of expansion capital because of the underlying uncertainty relating to the legislation that's been put in place under the previous government. And so until we get certain, until the producers have certainty that they can produce and risk that capital as well, there's no certainty on the other side for the pipeline that it will have the barrels it needs to go into the pipeline.

And so those two pieces have to work very closely together. And right now, there's a lack of certainty. So the question is, does the government come in and de-risk it at some point and then move back? Good question. There are a number of ways to look at this in terms of how it could come together. But at this moment, the lack of certainty from a production standpoint is also going to preclude a proponent from saying, yes, I'm going to risk that capital and build a pipeline

because that piece needs to be also on the table. We have just a few minutes left. Let me ask you, Rachel. I mean, there's a, and this is where we started, the government trying to do a couple of different things at the same time. Can governments dig minds and talk about pipelines and talk about LNG while also meeting climate goals? Is it possible to do that? The reaction has been really split broadly around this. What is your sense? I mean, I think you can take a couple of different tax to try to advance climate action. And one of the ways that we have been trying to do it for the last decade is really thinking. about, you know, like a regulatory approach that covers broad sectors, maybe we could look at the progress that has been achieved on things like electrification. You know, all of the fossil fuels are talking about go to end uses. And we're looking at this year, globally, being at least one in five new cars sold, are electric, possibly up to one and four. This is change that's happening overnight, and it's not just happening in rich countries like the European Union. It's, you know,

electric cars are taking off in Brazil. They're taking off in Nepal. And so I think the other way you can go at this is really say, let's spur momentum. Let's build out our electricity grid that's going to be kind of the backbone of this new age of electricity. Let's make sure every household is equipped with a heat pump. You get an electric vehicle. We're really kind of doubling down on the places that matter. I think we're missing a little bit in this broader approach by solely focusing on investment to get to some of those other areas of benefit. And that, you know, science-based climate targets still matter.

you know, at the end of the day, and Canadians want them, when you ask, you know, even within the last few months and all this turmoil, Canadians say 85% of them would still like to see more climate action happen. So whether you're taking that more, like let's focus on the tangible approach rather than the previous one, I think, you know, you can still be a government that's trying to be, you know, in Bilbo Baggins terms, like butter scraped over too much bread here. And standing up new industries like trying to get that like upstream processing, of course, critical minerals and really making sure some of these new industries are taking off in Canada will take energy and attention. And I think what we risk is just by trying to do too many things at once and not allowing the pure economics to surface. Like, are we going to be a country like if we looked back in 2001 who was doubling down on fax machines, like it wouldn't have been the best direction to go when we knew kind of the big picture of where the globe is heading. And I just think, you know, we really need to be looking at where Canada can put its best effort and energy to succeed in both climate and economics.

Catherine, we have a minute left. What's at stake here, do you think, in this conversation? I think we're hearing a lot about the oil industry. I expect we will hear more from Danielle Smith and the federal government in the days and weeks to come. I mean, I think a big message is that carbon capture and sequestration is not going to save the oil industry. And that's partly for the reasons that Rachel was saying, that the big issue is trends in consumption globally. that will reduce demand. You know, the IEA is anticipating a peak in demand by 2030 understated policies.

But also, even that Pathways project, you know, the projection is that they might reduce 62 million tons per year in 2050. That's a third, less than a third, of the oil and gas industry's current emissions. That's not consistent with even meeting Canada's targets, far from it. We will come back to this conversation as we get more details on how these projects will unfold. In the meantime, it's great to have you all here this morning to kind of sketch out where we're at right now. Thank you. Thank you. Debrie Edlin is president and CEO of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, Catherine Harrison, political

science professor at the University of British Columbia and Rachel Doran is executive director of Clean Energy Canada. You've been listening to the current podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca.