MBP Roundtable: Budget Changes, Pipeline Politics, and the State of Canada's Auto Sector

In this episode of MBP Intelligence Briefing, Ben Woodfinden, Tyler Meredith, Ken Boessenkool and Shannon Phillips discuss:

Changes to the timing and presentation of the upcoming Federal Budget (1:08)
The latest in pipeline politics with Premier Danielle Smith proposing a new West Coast pipeline and the revival of Keystone XL talks (25:02)
The state of Canada's auto sector and the existential threat it faces (41:10)
What we’re paying attention to (51:56)

Key takeaways:

On changes to the budget:

MEREDITH: We learned something about Carney and how he operates from this move to the fall. Wasn't in the platform.
MEREDITH: Carney was Governor of the Bank of England when the UK changed budget timing to the fall, not a coincidence.
BOESSENKOOL: You're forecasting a budget six months in advance before it starts happening. So that's a benefit when you're spending, but it's downside when you're doing revenue.
PHILLIPS: This will aid policy design and help stakeholders navigate budgets by clarifying upcoming allocations. With Carney's changes to the cabinet, stakeholders can now better align their requests with existing allocations.
MEREDITH: Change is important because this is the first of many big steps this government is going to take where it departs from the Trudeau government. Carney government less focused on things like spending on social policy, transfers to people, transfers to governments that aren't actually about building assets. Stakeholders should think about this in social policy area.

On pipelines:

PHILLIPS: A West Coast pipeline is unlikely to succeed unless supportive Indigenous nations along the route agree—constitutional treaty rights are a near‑insurmountable hurdle that C-5 cannot override. Prince Rupert is probably unrealistic, and overall demand uncertainty means such a project would likely require public backing.
BOESSENKOOL: There’s a real question whether only governments can now build major pipelines given Indigenous and provincial veto points. Hypothetical pipeline talk should not distract investors from concrete projects that could attract real capital.
MEREDITH: Provincial sponsorship of pipeline projects can be constructive and may vindicate past federal intervention, but meaningful progress requires BC’s buy‑in. Routing and negotiations will be protracted, and reuse or expansion of existing routes (for example, further using or adding capacity to Trans Mountain) is worth considering.
PHILLIPS: BC’s current government is more open to development—including filling or expanding TMX and port dredging—than past governments, so political opposition is not as monolithic as before and could enable different outcomes than prior fights.
WOODFINDEN: If Conservatives had won federally, they would likely have pursued repeal or major reform of laws that deter investment (C-69, the tanker ban), testing whether regulatory barriers rather than macro market conditions are the primary obstacle to pipeline investment.

On the auto sector:

MEREDITH: The U.S. objective is explicit—shift vehicle assembly (high‑value jobs) to U.S. soil while allowing Canada to remain a parts supplier; Canada must defend its assembly capacity to preserve advanced manufacturing and national economic sovereignty.
BOESSENKOOL: This is a very serious threat that requires a clear Canadian auto strategy and cautious negotiation—don’t rush into deals with Trump that could unravel later; Canada should fight rather than fold to protect jobs and exports.
PHILLIPS: Losing large numbers of auto jobs would trigger wide economic fallout requiring a whole‑of‑government fiscal and policy response (comparable in scale to pandemic-era measures) to support affected workers, communities, and domestic demand.

Transcript (check against delivery:

Sign up for free: