Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault is not the most obvious candidate to win our admiration.
Guilbeault, who resigned from cabinet last week over the Canada-Alberta energy deal, was once arrested for installing fake solar panels on then-premier Ralph Klein’s roof — while Klein’s terrified wife was home alone. Cruel and senseless are two words that come to mind.
But Guilbeault’s resignation last week was a mark of character. Guilbeault fundamentally disagreed with the energy deal, so the principled thing to do was to step down.
Some people are now asking whether Prime Minister Mark Carney has lost sight of his own principles. They note the former climate advocate has abandoned the climate values of the people who elected him — if not his own values as well.
We disagree with this characterization.
Yes, Carney’s long track record on climate may have led some to assume he would not be quite so friendly to the energy sector. But Carney’s central pitch to voters was that he was the best person to lead Canada through the economic and security crises it now faces.
And if that’s the aim, Ottawa’s memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Alberta was the right move.
The memorandum is a commitment by both governments to “advance the development of a bitumen pipeline to Asian markets” in exchange for concessions on climate policies and investments in a massive carbon capture and storage project.
Why is this type of infrastructure necessary? Because if Canada is serious about reducing its economic reliance on the U.S. — which currently receives three-quarters of all Canadian exports — it needs to move way more of its products to other markets.
Oil and gas — two of Canada’s most plentiful and valuable resources — fit the bill.
Look at a breakdown of U.S.-destined exports. Last year, fuels accounted for almost 30 per cent of all Canadian exports to the U.S.
The next largest category, at about 10 percent, is vehicles. Canada’s auto industry is highly integrated within North America; Canada cannot easily pivot to supplying cars to global markets, which are now dominated by cheaply produced Chinese EVs.
The third largest category of machinery is again highly specific to the customer, which means switching costs would be high.
Looking down the list there is no other obvious candidate for a high value, highly fungible good or service that Canada could easily switch to exporting to the rest of the world.
On top of this, Canada’s oil and gas reserves are vast. Canada has enough oil to meet total global oil demand for about five straight years.
Of course, this is where environmentalists such as Guilbeault get alarmed. If they had their way, an emissions intensive product like bitumen would be kept in the ground forever — even at the cost of foregone national prosperity.
But this is not what most Canadians want.
An Abacus poll conducted days after the MOU’s release shows strong awareness by Canadians of the deal and relatively strong support for it.
“Nationally, 55% said they either strongly or somewhat support the idea, while 18% were opposed.” While support was strongest among Albertans and Conservative voters, even British Columbians and Quebecers were net in favour.
“It is important to note that support for the idea of a pipeline to the west coast found more support than opposition in every region of the country,” Abacus’ report notes.
What’s more, only a minority of Canadians said they support climate policies if they harm the economy.
“Just one in three believe climate policies should move ahead even if they harm the economy, while nearly half reject that trade-off outright,” the report says.
Part of what this polling data reflect is an age-old truth: that pocketbook concerns trump environmental ones in times of economic stress. Canadians want a cleaner world, but not at the expense of our living standards.
But perhaps the data also reflect a shift in public sentiment about climate change. We wrote about this shift a couple weeks ago, in an editorial on Bill Gates’ letter about the need for smarter spending on climate change.
As we noted then, Gates has become something of an optimist on the climate change issue — and Carney has been one for some time.
Both have argued that climate change is serious but not cataclysmic, given the scale of clean energy innovation and long-term emissions trends.
There is now “unstoppable momentum” behind clean energy investments, Carney said in a 2023 podcast, noting progress on climate change had been much faster and more impactful than people expected.
Both also recognize that demand for oil and gas cannot be simply wished away. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, oil and gas will continue to be a critical part of the global energy supply mix.
If Canada doesn’t meet that demand, other countries will. Canadian heavy crude oil competes directly with Venezuelan exports on the international market. We’d be happy to put the Canadian energy sector’s environmental — and human rights — records up against Venezuela’s any day.
This is what Carney seems to be seizing on, and what he seems to have the blessing of a majority of Canadians to do.
In Parliament, Carney also has room to move to the right on this issue. It will suck up some of the Conservatives’ oxygen at a time when the NDP looks directionless and weak.
Of course, that could quickly change. The NDP is currently in search of its next leader, and NDP voters are one of the blocs most skeptical of the Canada-Alberta energy deal, with just 22 per cent in favour.
This could give the party’s faithful a cause to rally around.
Historically, the NDP has played the role of the conscience of Parliament, holding firm to their principles, often at the cost of power.
As the party searches for its next leader, perhaps someone should give Steven Guilbeault a call.
Did CAPP write this rubbish? “Both also recognize that demand for oil and gas cannot be simply wished away. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, oil and gas will continue to be a critical part of the global energy supply mix.”
Medium- to long-term oil and gas demand cannot be wished into existence, either. Read some oil demand modelling, please. Until you do, stop writing about topics you know nothing about.
What would your comment be about the dangers of shipping through the Hecate Strait?
It’s a good question. I would say it depends where the terminal would be located. In theory you could head straight out to sea from Prince Rupert and not go through the Strait, but I don’t know if that is the shipping lane or not.
“Guilbeault’s resignation was a mark of character”?
If Guilbeault truly held to his ideals he would either cross the floor to the NDP, Bloc or Greens OR sit as an independent.
Staying with the Liberal Party that went against his staunch views isn’t the huge statement he’d like to imagine
I’m not sure why he resigned from his position. I don’t think Carney figured the pipeline would ever happen anyways… Recent events with some Libs rebelling and failing to hold the party line would support my “no pipeline” theory.
I’m very pleased to see Guilbeault in the rear view mirror. He and Trudeau’s eco-terrorist policies did immeasurable damage to the Canadian economy!
I still don’t believe carney will go through with this pipeline deal unless it profits his own company Brookfield .
Steven Guilbeault is the poster child for an individual who puts ideology over the needs of the citizenry. He is reponsible for the implemenation of the consumer carbon tax during one of the worst period of inflation and cost angst for Canadian consumers. He put his ideology above the needs of the people. On top of that, when he was asked by the opposition what his plans were to measure the effectiveness of the carbon tax, he stated that it was not going to be measured. So here we are…. a consumer carbon tax implemented during a terrible time when Canadian consumers were already struggling, whose cost to us we could not see on any receipt, and whose effectiveness was never going to be measured…. the definition of insanity. Competent governments do not behave like this.