The Current - Should Canada be building crude oil pipelines?

Episode Date: October 10, 2025

This week, Prime Minister Mark Carney raised the prospect of reviving the Keystone XL pipeline with Donald Trump, while Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and BC Premier David Eby sparred over her proposal to build a new bitumen oil pipeline through B.C. to its northern coastline. We speak with a First Nations chief, a small town mayor on BC’s coast, and a retired pipeline executive in Calgary.

What happens when an identity is stolen? And then what happens when there isn't anyone or any document to help you get it back? He's saying, I'm innocent. I am William Woods. One William Woods ended up in prison. The other went on to live a normal life for decades. I'm Kathleen Goldhar and this week on Crime Story, The Two Lives of William Woods. Find us wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast.

In Washington this week, CBC News is reporting that Prime Minister Mark Carney raised the prospect with Donald Trump of reviving Keystone XL. This is an oil pipeline that would run from northern Alberta to the United States. It's news that the Premier of Alberta, Daniel Smith, was very happy to hear. I think that that's a positive, that what I had told Prime Minister Carney when he came in, in is stop threatening to sell the U.S. less energy, and let's promise to sell them more, because I think that's the pathway to a solution, and it seems like that, that seems to be the nature of the conversation. So I'm actually quite pleased. This isn't the only pipeline on Premier Smith's mind. She's been pushing both the Prime Minister

and the Premier of British Columbia, David Eby, to get on board for one that would extend westward from Alberta to BC's northern coast. There are still a lot of unknowns and questions around industry buy-in on the megaproject and whether Mark Carney will actually give it the green light. The Premier, David Eby, has criticized this proposal, calling it fictional. Premier Smith responded by calling his comments un-Canadian. Here's David Eby this week

on CBC's Power and Politics. What I have right now is a minister from Alberta who is going along to First Nations along the coast of British Columbia and saying that Alberta is going to be building a heavy oil pipeline through to their communities, which they see as an existential risk, there is an oil tanker ban off the coast for a good reason. David Eby isn't alone in his criticism of this potential pipeline.

Marilyn Slet is the elected chief of the Heltzok First Nation and the president of coastal First Nations and joins us now. Chief Slet, good morning. Good morning. You wrote a statement rebuking Daniel Smith's proposal saying, in your words, you had fought to keep crude oil tankers out of our territorial waters for over 50 years, and this stance is not a decision we take lightly. Why is that? Well, our communities are at the heart of the Great Bear Rainforest,

which is one of the world's last remaining coastal temperate rainforests. And the Great Bear Rainforest is uniquely Canadian. It is our home, and it's also a global ecological treasure, and it is no place for oil tankers. Daniel Smith called you before she made this announcement proposing this pipeline. that right? One of her ministers called the Monday two days before the announcement. And what was that conversation like? Well, it was short and it was a cold call. I didn't, I don't know any of the Alberta ministers. She had mentioned that they were going to be making an announcement and they

were calling, I see, I felt like it was like random First Nations on the coast. And, and And just saying that they were making an announcement and they didn't want to make that without making these phone calls. So was there any talk of consultation? I mean, they're letting you know, giving you a heads up that the announcement is coming. But was there talk that we should discuss this and look at how to figure out how to move forward together? She had mentioned that there would be some engagements and, you know, they were, you know, just reaching out. I understand that their time frame between now and trying to get this project onto the national project list is quite slim. So, yeah, I mean, our concerns is that's, you know, definitely not a lot of time to consult with multiple communities.

What conversations have you had with Premier David Eby about this? We have certainly reached out to Premier Eby. you know the oil tank moratorium is something that we fought for decades and you know would like to see it maintained we see it as good public policy that you know protects this region and yeah I felt like his comments and you know have been supportive and you know very appreciative is your sense that that tanker ban is going to stay in place don feral who is the head of the major project's office was grilled by MPs in the last couple of days and she was at asked whether there would be an exemption for the tanker ban.

Her director, Sarah Jackson, said there's no automatic exemption for the tanker ban and said she couldn't speak about hypotheticals. Do you think that that tanker ban is going to hold? Well, I mean, for us, one of the reasons why we supported it and why we think it should hold is there is certainly no support from Coastal First Nations for a pipeline or an oil tanker's project. No support? No support. no support from coastal first nations for a pipeline or oil tankers project.

And, you know, there is no technology that is out there that can clean up an oil spill. And so for you, it's a non-starter. For us, it's a non-starter. There's polling that is out this week from the Angus Reed Institute. They talked to 1,673 people. This is online. Margin of error plus or minus two percentage points 19 times out of 20. But the poll says that 59% of Canadians say they support the idea of a pipeline running from northern Alberta to northwest BC, including 56% of BC residents polled.

What do you make of that? Well, we certainly understand the economic challenges Canada is facing. And, you know, we are doing our part and we support major projects that are built in partnership with indigenous people. you know the since signing the great bear reinforced agreement 20 years ago we've built you know an acclaimed made in Canada a sustainable economy and so that does not square what you're saying the economy that you've built does not square with the idea of a pipeline coming through no no it doesn't I mean it puts the bears our communities would bear the risk of an oil spill my community had an oil spill

in 2016, which we're still recovering from. The context that this conversation is happening in feels different than maybe in past, given threats from the United States and this renewed, build, Canadian, build, baby build, kind of idea coming out of the prime minister's office. How does that shape, do you think, the conversation that we're having? And the discussion around pipelines, I just wonder whether the mood in the room is different now, do you think? Well, you know, the mood in the room are people still.

depend on a healthy ocean for our food and our way of life. And, you know, some of our communities on the coast source 60% of their diet directly from the sea. So our livelihood, our sustainability, our way of life, our economy, not just ours, but many of BC's economy, tourism, the fish food sector, rely upon a healthy ocean. That is not going to change. That remains. That means the same. What would you say, I'll let you go, but what would you say to Premier Daniel Smith? She says in some ways how Canada deals with this project will show whether the country works. Well, you know, if we're talking about nation building, it has to include everyone. And, you know, sometimes when projects bear too much of a risk, that has to be taken into consideration.

Chief Slot, good to speak with you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Marilyn Slet is the elected chief of the Heltzok First Nation and president of coastal first nations. In northwestern BC, the community of Kittamat is all in on natural gas. The town is home to Canada's first large-scale liquefied natural gas facility, the first major LNG facility in North America with direct access to the Pacific Coast and Asian markets. Phil Germouth is the mayor of the district of Kittamat and joins us now. Mayor Kermudh, good morning to you.

Morning, Matt. How are you doing? And well, what do you make of the Coastal First Nations President concerns around this proposed pipeline? She says it's a non-starter. I get it. It's, you know, the question, of course, that you mentioned, the poll that went out, asked about a pipeline from Alberta to out to B.C. on the coast, right? Yeah. But I think where the real difference of opinions or support comes in is what's in the pipeline, right? There's a huge difference, of course, between natural gas and, you know, crude oil, if there happens to.

to be an incident, right? Be it in marine transportation or be it on ground transportation. So, or land transportation. So I get it where they're coming from. And, you know, it's selling that product off. Of course, it's a very tough sell. Of course, if there was a way to, if we had a customer out there who was willing, who wanted to buy Canada's, you know, a value added, somewhat refined, of course,

then there's much less of an environmental risk should something happen, right? And I think that's kind of what it comes down to on that. Part of this is about creating buy-in, making sure, to her point, that everybody feels included in this. The LNG facility in Kittamat and the work that you did getting it there has been seen in many ways as a real opportunity and a roadmap for how that kind of relationship can be built. What did you learn from that experience? Oh, we learned tons, actually, Matt. It's, you know, having a good relationship with the proponent and having a proponent that wants that relationship right from. the beginning. Their final investment decision wasn't until October 1st, 2018, but it was as

far back as 2013 that we were working with LNG Canada and coastal gas link on, you know, okay, if this project goes ahead, how do we make sure that in this small community, everything is going to go smoothly, right? So we had years of preparation and, of course, a very willing proponent that wanted to engage and wanted to consult. And they also had an excellent relationship with the Heisle Nation, of course. You've said the strengthened relations with indigenous communities. for natural gas? Yeah, this project did, yeah. Yes, of course.

They did a great job of going out in consulting. And again, I would say it's not the pipeline. That's the issue. It's what's in the pipeline, right? I would suspect if the coastal gasoline pipeline was an oil pipeline coming here, you wouldn't have had the massive amount of support that you did have for a natural gas pipeline feeding the LNG facility here. Mark Carney has said that the Kittamat LNG project, could be one of the big projects he's looking to expand.

What would that mean for your community? Well, they already have all the permits. LNG Canada is just doing trains one and two right now, but they already have the permits to expand up to trains three and four. So they could start that any time they like. So we're obviously, you know, it's right from day one, that's been their plan, and that's been our hope, too, that it gets to trains three and four. Of course, Kittamette is also the location of the now canceled Kittamette LNG project

that was, of course, run by Chevron and Woodside. And, you know, so there's a permitted pipeline there, too, for another potential project. Enbridge now owns the rights to that pipeline and holds all the permits for it, that they're keeping updated, et cetera. But, you know, there's room here for another major LNG project, too, and we'll see what happens down the road.

Why do you think we as a country should be getting into the pipeline game right now? Oh, I think it's a no-brainer, really, you know, I think increased resource extraction and the great benefits that come with that economic are, you know, really a no-brainer in Canada. We, you know, we want to fund our health care. We want to fund education. Our resources are the way to get that. And being Canada, you know, we have some of the toughest environmental laws on earth.

We've got some of the toughest labor laws around. And we've got some of the toughest consultation with indigenous people's regulations. So, you know, we do things a lot better than a lot of other countries. And if these other countries aren't going to get the resources from us, they're getting them from somewhere else, where they're not going to be, you know, extracted as well and taken care of as well. So, you know, I think this is something we should have been doing decades ago, but here we are. How do you square that with the environmental concerns? People would say it's not a no-brainer because we're still in a, I mean, we just come through

another summer of fire across this country and that when you look at increasing fossil fuel extraction, people believe that will lead to further disruptions in the environment. How do you square that? I believe there's responsible ways to do it. Like I said, if they're not going to do it here, they're doing it somewhere else where it's much worse. So, you know, a carbon, you know, a CO2 molecule, it doesn't know boundaries or anything like that. Pollution doesn't know boundaries, right? So if we're doing things cleaner than other places and there's other countries that clearly want that product, whatever it may be,

why are we not taking advantage of that and doing it in a very sustainable way? You know, Ketamet, I think, is a great example of Canada, for example of Canada, as, you know, our newly modernized Rio Tinto, Melter is now producing the greenest aluminum anywhere in North America. Of course, LNG Canada has the lowest carbon footprint of any major LNG facility on Earth. So I think Kittam, that's a great showcase for Canada of how to get it right and how to do it right. So, yes, we should be taking advantage of that when we can. Just before I let you go, the Premier of Alberta says that she wants this pipeline to the BC coast. Would you like to see another pipeline come from Alberta into your community?

It depends what's in the pipeline. Yeah. That's, that's, for you, that's the bottom line is it depends what's in the pipeline. I believe that's the bottom line for a lot of people. Like, we've seen, you know, like LNG can and Coast Gas, he did a great job of getting support for, uh, for their gas pipeline coming here, right? Kittamette LNG also had support from 16 First Nations. Uh, so, you know, I believe the product in the pipeline has a lot to do with the support you're going to get. Phil Grimuth, we'll leave it there. Good to speak with you. Thank you. Thank you, Matt.

Phil Grimuth is the mayor of the District of Kittamat, British Columbia. The Great Canadian Baking Show is back. Hello, beautiful bakers, and welcome to the tent. Ten contestants. On your marks. Get set, bake. All hoping for the sweet smell of success. I am at the stage of Penny.

I just got to say a little prayer. I mean heaven. Wow. I haven't even tasted it, and I'm happy. I forgot to put in the eggs. Damn. Anyone else on control will be shaking right now? It's a new season of the Great Canadian Baking Show.

Watch free on CBC Gem. Dennis McConaughey is a retired Trans-Canada Pipeline Executive. He was part of the development team for the Keystone Exile Pipeline Systems, written several books about Canadian energy and climate policy. Dennis, good morning to you. Good morning. Should Canada be building more pipelines right now? Canada should absolutely be taking advantage of its opportunity to increase

heavy oil oil oil sands production and sell it over the next decade. Why now? Well, over the next decade, Alberta, oil sands resource, has the capacity to add a million

barrels a day of production, I believe. So just to put that into context, today Canada produces already between 4 to 5 million barrels a day, which about now 80% of that already is oil sands oil. The ability to expand that by another million barrels is the driving force for a great deal of this momentum for finding

an infrastructure solution to get that incremental production to market. And whether that is off the West Coast or revival of KXL is driven by the significant economic value that can be captured there. So this issue will never go away for Elberg. But whether it can happen or not, relative to either route, is a subject of a lot of different pros and cons, which I'm sure you'll ask me about. Do you think Keystone XL is really back from the dead? Well, it can be, but let me emphasize one point that applies to either pipeline route. It's not going to happen unless the risks of Canadian, existing Canadian climate policy are fundamentally changed.

the people who own that resource will not undertake this expansion unless they're not confronting emission caps and they're not confronting the condition to have any oil that would fill up any incremental pipe to be, quote, decarbonized, which means trying to implement a system of carbon capture and storage of the attributed emissions from that incremental production. the cost of applying that technology, in my view, would be two owners to make that viable. The cost to some people of removing that technology would be catastrophic. We're in a climate crisis. We're not in a climate crisis.

The point that needs to be understood here is Canada has a real simple choice, which is actually, I think, recognized by even the Kearney government at some level. It can take the value. It can recognize that if Canada's producing, have, you will, some other part of the world will, with no net impact on global emissions. So, you know, Canada has a really, and I think here the Premier of Alberta is correct, a fundamental choice of capturing value in a world where denying ourselves that opportunity will may have no material impact on global emissions.

So just to be clear, in this country, if we're making these decisions, Should climate be of any consideration? Candidates should have a rational climate policy. What does that mean? I don't believe it's ever had. That means that our standard of climate policy should be consistent with what our major trading partners are prepared to impose on themselves and not be imposing more costs related to reducing climate emissions that only deny or frustrating. present value from the ability to sell a product that is very valuable. And I mean, the point here as to why is oil expansion, whether it's through the West Coast

or through Keystone XL. And they both have different challenges. And I'm one who probably would favor a revival of KXL relative to the West Coast pipeline because I think it does avoid some of the concerns that you've spent, you know, the last minutes having set out. On the other hand, reviving KXL may not be as valuable an option to Canada as the West Coast option. But that's to be decided primarily by those who own this oil, which are the producers of oil, sands oil, and the province of Alberta, who's the resource owner.

But my point is, either way, the driving force of this value to be captured for Canada is going to be a major part of the debate about whether the current government gets serious about building and capturing economic value in the context of a country that has had almost zero GDP growth for the last decade, much of which was because of the frustration of these kinds of infrastructure projects. What do you do about the opposition that we heard from First Nations in British Columbia? You just heard them. They said they're not backing down. This is a non-starter, the idea to them of a pipeline going to their coast. Two answers to you on that point. On what basis do we run this country relative to the massive economic benefit of going forward to all Canadians relative to a risk that is imposed by specific communities? And this is going to be a debate under all kinds of development projects.

It always is. Now, as a country, we have to decide how much value we're prepared to lose to provide effectively a veto to local communities. So you believe that if the country believes that it's in the national interest, if the prime minister believes it's in the national interest, something like the tanker ban should be stricken off the books? Absolutely. Absolutely, unequivocally. And what happens to the rights in a way, if BC is signatory to Undrip, which protects the rights of indigenous people, what happens to those rights? Well, so we're going to have a debate about what are their rights in a jurisdiction where the land claims are not as settled as in other parts of Canada.

And this very point is one of the reasons why I welcome revival of KXL because it is a fundamentally different circumstance. relative to how much of that project is in the U.S. And another point I think should be remembered here is back in 2012, 2013, when Norden Gateway, which is essentially what is being revived in the U.S. Coast pipeline, the national regulator of the time, signed off on the tanker spill risk. They signed off on the net benefits to the country of that project. And that project was frustrated or denied proceeding at the 11th hour, which is in the late 2015, when the Trudeau government decided, being the government of the day, that in their judgment, the risks of an oil spill in that location was too high to bear. So I've lived with that decision.

That may have to be reconsidered. So, I mean, ultimately, the people that are democratically elected at the federal level are going to have to make a decision, relatively these two options. Now, as I've emphasized, neither is going to occur unless there are fundamental changes of national carbon policy, climate policy. David E.B. says that this proposed Alberta to BC pipeline is fictional, in part, because there is no backer right now. There's nobody who is funding a pipeline. Do those people exist? Of course they exist. Well, they don't exist right now.

That's utterly ridiculous. There are five to six major oil sands producers who are well aware of the opportunity of expanding their production. They are the people who will ultimately have to supply the credit. Now, this is a chicken and egg issue. If they think the risk of underwriting either of these pipelines is reasonable enough, they will come forward and there will be pipeline entities like South Bow, like Enbridge and others, who will supplement what the people of Alberta is already done by basically having a placeholder of this project. So, you know, there's a kind of chicken and egg thing. Now, you go down that list from Sinovus to the NRL. There's half a dozen of them.

And they are a major contributor to Canadian GDP. And so, I mean, they are there. But the assessment of whether the risks of taking this on are reasonable starts with a reversal of Canadian carbon policy. I have to let you go. But just before, we just have a few seconds left. Is your sense that public sentiment has materially changed on the subject? Well, in the context of a country that has had zero GDP growth for a decade,

it certainly should, I'll say that as a Canadian citizen. And in my own belief, in your own reference to this recent polling, I think people get that in a present value sense for Canada, seizing this value is something. something that I don't think it can it can rationally just ignore. But I will concede this is a major difficult heart-rending decision for the Carney government because I think they know all these facts. And that's why in part KXL revival minimizes some of the some of the harder tradeoffs internally if that project can be made to go. Dennis McConaghy, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Dennis McConaughey is a retired TransCanada Pipeline Executive. He was in Calgary. 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 slash podcasts.