Pipelines and the Prime Minister's Hierarchy of Needs

Today, Prime Minister Carney and Alberta Premier Smith announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that trades federal approval for a pipeline to Canada’s west coast—contingent on certain conditions—for new policies and projects aimed at reducing oil and gas sector emissions. The MoU does not specify the pipeline’s route but commits federal support for exporting an additional million barrels of oil to markets in Asia. This announcement has reignited concern in British Columbia on an issue coastal residents thought was settled when the tanker ban was announced.

For decades, Indigenous communities, fishermen, environmental organizations, and coastal residents have called on governments to safeguard the north coast of Canada’s Pacific region from oil tanker traffic. The implementation of the tanker ban brought palpable relief and a sense of collective security, averting the risk of catastrophic oil spills that could devastate local economies and fragile ecosystems. As someone who advocated for the tanker ban, I continue to believe in its importance for both the environment and the communities whose livelihoods depend on a healthy coast.

However, my recent experiences as a policy advisor to the former Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and as a candidate for public office, have deepened my appreciation for the complex political forces shaping federal governance. Drawing from Maslow’s well-known hierarchy, I’ve conceptualized the “Prime Minister’s Hierarchy of Needs”—a framework that outlines the conditions a Prime Minister must satisfy to advance their vision for Canada. If any condition falters, ambitions to address issues such as  climate change are jeopardized, and the prospect of electoral defeat, especially to the Conservatives, becomes very real.

The Prime Minister’s Hierarchy of Needs

1. Economic Stability

At the base of this hierarchy is economic stability. When the economy weakens, and Canadians perceive the government as either the cause or incapable of providing solutions, trust erodes

swiftly. Economic performance touches the daily lives of all Canadians, making it the most immediate and sensitive political concern.

2. Security

Security encompasses public safety, national defence, and trade resilience. Canadians expect safety in their communities and confidence in their country’s defences. Recent trade disputes with the United States have highlighted the critical need for robust domestic and international trade security.

3. National Unity

Canada’s co-operative federalism requires a delicate balance among ten provinces and three territories, each with distinct needs and perspectives. Canadians value both regional fairness and national cohesion. Persistent friction between federal and provincial leaders can undermine the perception of effective national governance, and no Prime Minister wants to oversee a province on the brink of separation.

4. Democracy

Democracy is the penultimate layer, with regular, fair elections serving as vital mechanisms for accountability and government responsiveness.

5. Sustained Mandate to Govern

At the apex is the sustained mandate to govern. While election night confers an initial mandate, retaining it over time requires consistently meeting the preceding needs. Only then can a Prime Minister pursue ambitious, long-term goals.

The MoU: Navigating Political Trade-Offs

The recent MoU with Alberta illustrates the Prime Minister’s efforts to address these hierarchical needs. The agreement is crafted to assuage Albertan frustrations with Ottawa and temper calls for independence, signals Canada’s openness to business and potentially attract investment, and if approved, the pipeline would diversify Canada’s oil export markets and reduce reliance on the United States – thereby addressing economic, security, and national unity considerations. By establishing clear standards for pipeline approval, the Prime Minister leaves it to Alberta and the private sector to demonstrate economic viability and secure broad support, including from Indigenous communities.

Whether the pipeline will be built is uncertain. Global energy markets are rapidly shifting towards clean energy, with investments in renewables now double those in fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand will peak by 2030. Constructing a pipeline to BC’s north coast would involve crossing challenging terrain and countless waterways, requiring years to plan and build at great expense. The time required to prepare a pipeline proposal, let alone build it, will bring close to or past 2030 and the costs of the pipeline could make the tolls (cost of shipping the oil through the pipeline) too expensive. Written between the lines of the MoU is the invisible hand of the market and the role it will play in deciding whether a pipeline is ever built. The MoU makes a pipeline possible, not probable.

Climate Change and the Prime Minister’s Hierarchy of Needs

Where does climate action fit within this hierarchy? As someone deeply committed to Canada’s climate goals, I am troubled by the idea of developing permanent infrastructure that could increase oil production, with only politically vulnerable measures to limit emissions. A future Conservative government could dismantle the industrial carbon price, but a pipeline, once built, cannot be undone.

I imagine that many climate advocates would argue that climate action should be a distinct level in the Prime Minister’s hierarchy, suggesting that a government’s mandate relies on meaningful emissions reductions. Given the existential threat of climate change, this sentiment is understandable.

Yet, the Trudeau era revealed a more complicated reality. Despite launching Canada’s most ambitious climate plan and achieving downward-trending emissions, Trudeau’s government struggled with political stability, going from a majority government in 2015 to nearly being wiped out in 2024. The introduction of carbon pricing was weaponized by the Conservative Party of Canada when the cost of living increased and life became more unaffordable. Other climate policies rubbed the provinces the wrong way, especially in Alberta, fuelling separatist sentiment and undermining the government’s mandate. Clearly, climate policy does not guarantee political durability.

Rather than treating climate action as a separate layer, it must be woven into every stage of governance. Policymakers should ask: How can climate policy improve affordability? Can it diversify trade? How can it foster national unity? The current MoU reflects this integrated approach, incorporating industrial carbon pricing, methane regulations, and the Pathways carbon capture initiative to, in theory, giving Canadian oil a market advantage in a world seeking lower emission energy while also reducing Canada’s emissions.

Lessons from the Past—and Uncertain Prospects Ahead

I recall the grand bargain between Trudeau and Alberta in 2016: national carbon pricing in exchange for approval—and eventual federal purchase—of the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline. Alberta received its pipeline, but anti-Trudeau rhetoric intensified, and environmentalists never let Trudeau forget that he bought a pipeline. There was no political win for the Trudeau government. This new MoU may face similar obstacles. The Conservatives will continue to rally opposition to the industrial carbon price and anything else related to reducing emissions; Alberta will remain wary of Ottawa; environmental groups will challenge Carney’s climate credentials. And the one that bothers me the most is that Indigenous communities once again bear the brunt of defending the coastal ecosystem that sustains us. Carney’s political acumen will be tested as he navigates the politics of pipelines.

I do not want to see oil tankers on this coast and I believe that Indigenous opposition and the markets make the likelihood low. But politics is the art of decision-making and viewing the Prime Ministers decision through his hierarchy of needs helps me understand why he made this decision. And I would rather have Carney at the helm than Poilievre, any day.