Crude oil tankers docked at the Trans Mountain Westridge Marine Terminal near a residential area in Burnaby, B.C., in June, 2024.DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press
Brandon Schaufele, Associate Professor, Ivey Business School and Director, Ivey Energy Policy and Management Centre
The ancient Greek poet Archilochus observed that “the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Two-and-a-half millennia later, this metaphor proves useful for understanding Canada’s current energy politics. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is a hedgehog; federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson is a fox.
Philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously popularized the distinction between hedgehogs and foxes. Hedgehogs, in his telling, interpret the world through a single big idea. A hedgehog’s strength is its conviction. They rally supporters around a simple, powerful story. Foxes, by contrast, see the world as complex. They balance competing objectives, adapt to new information, and muddle through difficult situations. Foxes find a way to deliver realistic results.
Since becoming premier in 2022, Ms. Smith has relentlessly advanced a well-known chorus: oil pipelines are nation-building. In her view, Canada’s prosperity and unity hinge on expanding Alberta’s oil export capacity. Her government recently committed $14-million to develop a proposal for a pipeline to British Columbia’s northwest coast. Ms. Smith described the proposal as “a test of whether Canada works as a country.” She argues that if Alberta cannot build pipelines while the federal government supports other provinces to export their products, “then it’s not a country.”
Opinion: Does Canada need a new oil pipeline? Maybe. More LNG? Definitely
This is classic hedgehog reasoning. For Ms. Smith, pipelines are not one component of an integrated energy system or advanced Canadian economy. Rather, pipelines represent the future of the Canadian economy. Other energy projects, including interprovincial transmission, carbon capture, or nuclear expansion, are secondary. The game is a new oil pipeline.
Hedgehogs are often politically effective. They distill a complicated policy landscape into a story that galvanizes public support. Yet, that very simplicity too frequently leads to errors. Projects rooted in political conviction rather than commercial feasibility rarely end well. Muskrat Falls, Keeyask and Site C generating stations are all expensive examples of politics over economics.
Even clear economic winners, such as the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, can quickly become mired in cost overruns, litigation, and years of delay when governments enter the energy infrastructure business. Jason Jacques, Canada’s interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, estimates that the Trans Mountain Pipeline system is valued at $29.6-billion – $4.6-billion less than the expansion project’s $34.2-billion cost that was borne by the federal government.
Ms. Smith as hedgehog can be contrasted with Mr. Hodgson’s fox-like instincts. Mr. Hodgson’s rhetoric is pragmatic. He describes Canada as an “energy superpower in both the conventional and clean sense,” and has emphasized that energy development must be tied to national unity. Energy is not, and should not be, a political litmus test.
Opinion: Alberta gets oil pipeline politics bouncing again
Mr. Hodgson underscored that “Canada’s energy future will not be built through one project or one technology, but through multiple paths pursued together.” Pipelines can indeed contribute to national prosperity, but only when they are economically justified. Canadians should not be encouraged into overpaying for infrastructure we don’t need. That’s fox reasoning.
Energy development is not a zero-sum contest between fossil fuels and clean technologies. It is a complex sector – one fundamental to economic growth – in which, to be successful, infrastructure, capital, and policy must move in concert. Canada needs a portfolio of energy projects spanning conventional oil and gas, renewables, nuclear, and grid modernization.
The obstacle for any form of energy infrastructure is getting the projects finished. To this end, Mr. Hodgson and Prime Minister Mark Carney are pushing permitting reform to shorten project review timelines, while maintaining environmental integrity. Mr. Hodgson’s fox approach acknowledges the messy realities of interprovincial politics, Indigenous reconciliation, and global decarbonization. Canada’s energy sector needs more foxes.
Policymaking in a federation as geographically diverse and constitutionally fragmented as Canada cannot be governed by a single “big thing.” The question for Canadians is whether we value realism or prefer rhetoric. Building another pipeline might be sound policy, but only if market demand, capital discipline, and environmental feasibility align. If prices or shipping constraints justify it, a pipeline truly will be a nation-building project. If new capacity cannot earn a risk-adjusted return without government subsidy, then it will merely transfer wealth from taxpayers to shareholders.
Canada’s energy strategy needs balance now more than ever. The country should pursue projects that create real value, attract private capital, and integrate long-term economic goals. That means encouraging disciplined investments, not nostalgia dressed up as nation-building. In the end, pipelines will remain part of Canada’s energy story, but they must be pipelines of purpose, not pipelines for politicians.