Context: The Confederation Report
Host: Steven R. Martins
Language: English
Part I: Bloc’s Opposition to Pipelines (0:28-3:04)
Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet reaffirmed his opposition to reviving the Energy East pipeline and LNG projects, arguing they don’t benefit Quebec, while critics highlight the province’s reliance on foreign oil imports.
Part II: The Hypocrisy Is Showing (3:07-6:52)
Quebec’s rejection of Canadian oil pipelines in favor of foreign imports exposes a contradiction in its energy policies, prioritizing ideological environmentalism over economic security, ethical labor, and national energy independence.
Part III: The Green Idol (6:55-10:22)
Environmentalism, as a form of nature worship, rejects mankind’s God-given role as steward of creation, opposing progress and dominion while contradicting the biblical mandate to cultivate and develop the earth for God’s glory.
Did You Know? (10:25-12:02)
The European demand for beaver fur in the late 1500s drove French merchants to Canada, fueling the fur trade, reshaping Indigenous lifestyles, and laying the foundation for New France’s colonial presence.
Transcript:
It’s Week 8 of 2025, and this is The Confederation Report, a weekly analysis of Canadian news and culture from a biblical worldview. I’m Steven R. Martins, and each week, we break down the headlines, challenge secular narratives, and apply Scripture to the issues that matter. Because Christ is Lord—over Canada, over culture, over all of life.
Part I: Bloc’s Opposition to Pipelines (0:28-3:04)
In a recent interview, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet has reaffirmed his staunch opposition to any attempts to revive the Energy East pipeline, which would transport oil from Alberta to the Maritimes. He made it clear that he would not support such a project, even in the face of U.S. President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy. Blanchet also dismissed the idea of a liquefied natural gas terminal in Saguenay, also referred to as LNG, calling it a “zombie” project with no future. He insisted that Quebec would not permit the transportation of Western Canadian hydrocarbons through its territory, arguing that it does not benefit the province, the environment, or the planet.
Blanchet criticized Liberal leadership-hopeful Mark Carney in particular, a key figure in the Liberal Party leadership, accusing him of exaggerating the urgency of Canada’s energy needs to undermine Quebec’s sovereignty. He argued that the push for exporting western Canadian hydrocarbons is a fabricated crisis designed to sideline Quebec’s focus on green energy. According to Blanchet, this rhetoric serves as a pretext to bypass Quebec’s ecological considerations in order to push an oil pipeline through to the Atlantic.
Despite rejecting pipelines from Alberta, Quebec continues to import significant amounts of crude oil from foreign sources. Hypocritical much? In 2020, the province imported $8.75 billion worth of U.S. oil, and in 2023, it brought in 429 million barrels of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, alongside 150,000 barrels per day of offshore crude. While Blanchet opposes Canadian pipelines, his position effectively leaves Quebec reliant on imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, Colombia, and the UK.
The Energy East pipeline, if revived, would have its terminus at the Irving refinery in New Brunswick, which is already a major hub for Canadian oil refining. The only province importing more crude than Quebec is New Brunswick, emphasizing the region’s dependence on imported fuels. This contradiction in Quebec’s energy policy has been a point of contention in Canada’s ongoing energy debates.
Meanwhile, Quebec Premier François Legault has maintained that any pipeline project must have a “social licence” in order to proceed through the province. He stated that while he is open to reviewing any proposals, the ultimate decision would depend on public acceptance. This position reinforces Quebec’s effective veto over national pipeline projects, ensuring that Alberta’s oil faces continued barriers in reaching eastern markets.
Part II: The Hypocrisy Is Showing (3:07-6:52)
Here is a question worthy of diligent reflection: Is it not better to develop oil with the latest, cleanest technology in Canada than to continue importing crude from foreign sources with lower environmental and labor standards? Quebec’s refusal to allow an oil pipeline from Alberta to the Maritimes forces reliance on oil imports from places like Saudi Arabia, Colombia, and the UK, rather than utilizing Canadian resources. This decision raises serious questions about hypocrisy—why subject one’s own people to economic hardship, poverty even, when a domestic energy industry could provide jobs and prosperity while adhering to the world’s highest environmental regulations? Oil is a created material, it was designed and placed in the earth by God for mankind’s benefit, and its development into a useful resource aligns with the very definition of a “natural resource.”
Quebec boasts of its commitment to green energy, yet no energy source is truly green. Every form of so-called “clean” energy—solar, wind, hydro—depends on fossil fuels at some stage, whether in mining, manufacturing, transportation, or maintenance. Wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, require vast amounts of mined materials, including rare earth elements like dysprosium, as well as steel, concrete, and fiberglass—all of which require energy-intensive extraction and production. The supposed shift away from hydrocarbons is an illusion; it merely relocates fossil fuel consumption upstream in the supply chain.
Beyond environmental concerns, the ethical implications of so-called clean energy cannot be ignored. For example, the materials required for solar and wind energy often come from sources tainted by human rights abuses. Over half of the world’s polysilicon, essential for solar panels, is produced in China’s Xinjiang region, where Uyghur Muslims are enslaved. The cobalt used in batteries for solar and wind storage is largely sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where child labor and hazardous conditions are rampant. Quebec refuses to accept responsibly developed Canadian oil, yet it has no qualms about benefiting from energy technologies tied to forced labor and environmental destruction abroad.
Moreover, the reality of green energy waste is often overlooked. Wind turbine blades and solar panels have limited lifespans—typically 25 years for solar and even less for wind. When decommissioned, these materials become an enormous waste problem. Old wind turbine blades alone generate millions of tons of unrecyclable plastic waste annually. Many of the materials used in solar panels are toxic, and when improperly disposed of, they leach into water supplies. The environmental cost of “clean” energy is thus far greater than its proponents admit, making Quebec’s outright rejection of Canadian oil all the more unreasonable.
Quebec’s stonewalling of a West-to-East pipeline is, in the most polite of terms, a slap in the face to the rest of Canada, particularly the Maritimes, and it’s all driven by the “green” religion known as environmentalism. If the province were truly committed to ethical, sustainable energy, it would recognize the superiority of responsibly developed Canadian oil over foreign imports and the illusion that is “clean” energy. Instead, Quebec’s policies prioritize ideology over Canada’s economic security, sovereignty, and energy independence, leaving the rest of the country to bear the consequences.
Part III: The Green Idol (6:55-10:22)
The “green” religion, also known as environmentalism, is nothing less than the absolutization of the physical modal aspect of the created order. It elevates nature to the status of a deity while paradoxically excluding mankind from this deified nature. In this worldview, mankind is not a steward of creation but an intruder, an enemy, a virus, or a plague upon the earth. Rather than seeing mankind as an integral part of God’s creation, environmentalism treats human presence and development as inherently destructive.
Pushed to its logical conclusion, environmentalism demands an entirely undeveloped world, seeing any transformation of raw materials into resources as an act of desecration. Within this framework, nature—often personified as “Mother Earth”—is of greater value than human life. Progress, innovation, and technological advancement are perceived as threats rather than blessings. Humanity must be restrained, its development truncated, its flourishing frustrated, all in service of the green idol.
Yet this perspective is far removed from the biblical worldview. Scripture calls mankind to responsible stewardship, not to the worship of creation. Environmentalism, in its deification of the earth, contradicts God’s command in Genesis 1:28, where He calls mankind to multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. The term “subdue” (or “have dominion”) does not imply reckless exploitation but rather a consecration of creation under God’s truth. It is a call to interpret and develop the world according to God’s Law-Word, recognizing that creation exists not to be worshiped but to be cultivated for God’s glory and mankind’s benefit.
Far from being a plague upon creation, mankind is commissioned as God’s steward. As mankind advances in technological prowess, so too does the efficiency and sustainability of development. When exercised rightly, dominion leads to greater resourcefulness, less waste, and a fuller realization of human flourishing—all for the glory of God. The irony of environmentalism is that by opposing human progress, it often fosters wastefulness and inefficiency rather than true stewardship.
The parable of the talents offers a striking parallel. God has given mankind His creation not to leave it untouched in fear of spoilage but to cultivate and develop it wisely. The servant who buried his talent in the ground out of fear was reprimanded, while those who invested and multiplied what they had received were commended. Likewise, mankind is called not to abandon the world to stagnation but to work, create, and develop in obedience to God’s mandate. The question remains: will we be faithful stewards, cultivating the resources God has entrusted to us, or will we, like the fearful servant in Matthew 25:14-30, refuse to act and call it virtue?
Did You Know? (10:25-12:02)
In the late 1500s, beaver fur was so highly prized in Europe that the once-abundant local beaver populations had nearly vanished. This drove French merchants across the Atlantic to what is now Canada in search of new sources. Tadoussac, located at the mouth of Quebec’s Saguenay River, quickly became a bustling centre of the fur trade, with dozens of French vessels arriving each summer to barter for pelts.
Because of the beaver’s soft underfur—particularly ideal for making felt hats—the French Crown saw an opportunity for profit and began granting monopolies to fur-trading companies. However, there was a catch: these companies had to encourage settlement and send Catholic missionaries to the region. This demand helped spark a permanent French presence in the St. Lawrence Valley.
The fur trade not only shaped the economy but also transformed Indigenous ways of life. The Mi’kmaq, for instance, who once relied on coastal fishing for much of their food, began spending long winters inland trapping fur-bearing animals for trade. This shift altered their diet and way of life, making them increasingly dependent on European goods. Meanwhile, France’s colonial ambitions faced harsh realities—early attempts at settlement in Tadoussac and Sable Island ended in disaster, with most settlers perishing in brutal winters. But despite these struggles, figures like Samuel de Champlain persisted, and by the early 1600s, the groundwork for New France was firmly laid, marking the beginning of centuries of French influence in Canada.
Documentation and Additional Reading:
Western Standard (Shaun Polczer)
Bloc head Blanchett ‘fiercely’ opposed to oil pipelines through Quebec
Mackinac Center (Joshua Antonini)
Clean energy isn’t clean: Wind turbines and solar panels don’t grow on trees