‘People in Alberta are starting to get antsy’: Why wasn’t an oil pipeline on Carney’s ‘nation-building’ projects list?

Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources, and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, breaks down the latest announcement of Prime Minister Carney’s “nation-building projects,” scheduled to be fast-tracked in an attempt to spur investment in the face of a United States no longer keen on Canada. They also discuss why an oil pipeline was not on the federal government’s list. You can listen to this episode on Amazon, Apple, and Spotify. Program Summary This is an automated summary. Please check against delivery. The central argument focuses on a perceived mismatch between the office’s stated purpose and its actual function. It has been suggested that projects seeking inclusion on the Major Projects list are primarily looking for government financing rather than regulatory streamlining. When the office was announced, many anticipated it would serve to eliminate burdensome regulations and streamline approval processes for significant infrastructure developments. However, the reality appears different. To date, the office has designated approximately thirteen projects, but none appear to have received the special “nation building” designation that would allow them to bypass certain federal laws and regulations. Instead, critics suggest the office has become a conduit for government funding. It has been noted that most projects on the list fall primarily under provincial jurisdiction and either did not require federal approval or had already received it, reinforcing the conclusion that the office is primarily about the government choosing which projects to financially support. A particular point of criticism centers on the approach to oil pipeline projects. It was pointed out that while the government’s major projects inventory contains over five hundred projects, only thirteen have been designated by this office. This creates a situation where the government appears to be picking winners and losers, sometimes even between projects that may compete in the same markets. The critique acknowledges that some government intervention makes sense, particularly for critical minerals for defense supply chains. However, it emphasizes that these are projects that will cost money, contrasting them with oil sector projects that, it is argued, could proceed with private financing if regulatory obstacles were removed. Major oil pipeline projects have emerged as a contentious issue. It has been noted that several large-scale pipeline projects have been proposed that do not need government financing and are not seeking inclusion on the Major Projects Office list. The critique argues that these projects only need regulatory clarity to proceed with private capital but are not being prioritized. This has led to frustration over a lack of clarity regarding the government’s position on oil pipeline development, despite earlier promises of a resolution. Regarding the office’s staffing, it has been noted that the government appears to be hiring financing experts rather than regulatory experts, which further supports the conclusion that its primary function differs from its original purpose. The fundamental critique centers on the belief that Canada’s economic development strategy should focus on creating an environment where private sector capital can thrive, rather than requiring projects to seek government financing.