Comparative Economic Analysis: Alberta-to-Coast Pipelines vs. Nationwide 10 Gb/s Internet

Introduction

Canada faces strategic decisions in infrastructure investment as it seeks long-term economic prosperity. Two ambitious but very different nation-building projects have been proposed: (1) constructing oil pipelines from Alberta to both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, enabling crude exports to global markets; and (2) deploying ultra-high-speed 10 Gb/s internet connectivity across the country, bridging the digital divide and future-proofing Canada’s communications network. Each option carries substantial costs, risks, and potential benefits. This white paper provides a detailed comparison of these projects, drawing on authoritative sources to evaluate their economic impacts, social and environmental factors, and regional considerations.

Project Scope

Pipelines from Alberta to the Pacific and Atlantic Coasts

Building pipelines to “both coasts” entails two major undertakings. The western project centers on twinning or expanding pipelines from Alberta’s oil sands to a Pacific deep-water port in British Columbia. A prime example is the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX), which twinned an existing 1,150 km pipeline from Edmonton, AB to Burnaby, BC (near Vancouver) [1]. TMX nearly tripled the line’s capacity from ~300,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 890,000 bpd [2], allowing Alberta crude to be loaded onto tankers for export to Asia-Pacific markets. On the Atlantic side, a comparable project would lay roughly 4,400 km of pipeline from Alberta to Canada’s East Coast. The defunct Energy East proposal (cancelled in 2017) is illustrative: it would have converted 3,000 km of existing natural gas pipe and built 1,500 km of new pipeline to carry 1.1 million bpd of oil from Alberta to a new marine terminal and refineries in New Brunswick [3] [4].

The scope of these pipeline projects is massive. They must traverse multiple provinces and challenging terrain (rocky mountains, forests, populated areas) and cross hundreds of rivers and streams. Dozens of pumping stations and tank terminals would be required. Additionally, terminal facilities on each coast (such as the Westridge Marine Terminal in BC) need upgrades to handle increased tanker traffic. For instance, the TMX expansion increases tankers calling at Vancouver’s port from about 5 per month to as many as 34 per month, a nearly seven-fold rise [5]. Similar export capacity would need to be built on the Atlantic, likely at Saint John, NB, where Energy East had planned a deep-water port for crude export [6].

Such pipeline projects typically take years of planning, regulatory review, and construction. If pursued today, they would involve federal-provincial coordination and consultations with municipalities and Indigenous communities along the routes. Given the scale, each pipeline represents a mega-project in its own right, with significant workforce and materials requirements, as detailed in later sections.

Nationwide 10 Gb/s Broadband Internet Deployment

The alternative project is investing in Canada’s digital infrastructure to deliver 10 gigabit-per-second (Gb/s) internet service to virtually all communities nationwide. This implies a dramatic upgrade to telecommunications networks, far beyond the current federal universal service target of 50 Mb/s download and 10 Mb/s upload for rural households [7]. Achieving 10 Gb/s speeds ubiquitously would require extending fiber-optic cables (which can easily support multi-gigabit rates) to homes and businesses across urban centres, small towns, and remote regions. The project scope includes installing backbone fiber across vast distances (often in the same general corridors as pipelines or power lines), deploying last-mile fiber-to-the-premises in cities and rural areas, and possibly leveraging advanced fixed wireless or satellite links for the most isolated locations. In essence, it is a “fiber to every community” initiative, with 10 Gb/s capacity as the standard for network equipment.

Nationwide 10 Gb/s coverage means not only connecting the ~6 million Canadians (approximately 1.3 million households) in rural and remote areas currently underserved by broadband [8], but also upgrading urban networks to next-generation speeds. Major Canadian telecom providers have already begun offering multi-gigabit fiber in cities (e.g. 3 to 8 Gb/s plans), so this project would ensure that rural Canadians enjoy comparable technology, eliminating the urban-rural digital gap. The scope includes partnerships with provincial broadband programs and Indigenous-led initiatives to reach First Nations communities. For example, British Columbia’s “Connecting Communities” program aims to connect every household in B.C. by 2027 [9], and numerous projects in northern B.C. are laying fiber to remote villages and Indigenous reserves with support from local, provincial, and federal funds [10]. A nationwide plan would tie together these regional efforts under one vision of ubiquitous ultra-high-speed internet.

The implementation would span fiber trenching and aerial cable installation across tens of thousands of kilometers. In challenging northern terrain, special solutions (like undersea fiber cables along the BC coast or low-earth-orbit satellite links for Arctic hamlets) might be used to achieve coverage. Overall, this project is a comprehensive upgrade of Canada’s communications backbone and access networks, effectively treating internet connectivity as critical infrastructure on par with highways or pipelines. The intended outcome is that every Canadian, whether in downtown Toronto or a remote Yukon village, can access internet speeds up to 10 Gb/s, enabling equal participation in the digital economy of the future.

Cost Estimates and Investment Requirements

Both options involve multi-billion dollar expenditures. Table 1 summarizes the estimated capital costs of the Alberta-to-coasts pipelines versus the nationwide broadband rollout, based on publicly available figures and historical project data.

Table 1 – Estimated Capital Costs for Pipeline Projects vs. Nationwide 10 Gb/s Internet
Project Component Estimated Cost (CAD) Notes/Source
West Coast Pipeline (Alberta to Pacific)
e.g. Trans Mountain Expansion (1150 km, 590k bpd)		 $30–34 billion Final construction cost of TMX expansion ballooned to an estimated C$30.9 billion by 2024 [11] (initial estimate was $7.4 billion).
East Coast Pipeline (Alberta to Atlantic)
e.g. Energy East (4400 km, 1.1 million bpd)		 $15–20 billion Original estimate for Energy East was ~$12 billion in 2013 [12], later projected around $15.7 billion [13]. Inflation and route changes could push it closer to $20 billion if revived.
Coastal Export Terminals & Tanker Infrastructure (East & West) $2 billion (approx.) Upgrades to marine terminals, storage tanks, and port safety measures. (TMX’s Westridge Marine Terminal expansion and marine safety enhancements cost ~$0.5–1 billion [14]; a similar new terminal in NB could be of comparable order.)
Total – Pipelines to Both Coasts ~ $50 billion Rough total capital investment for one westbound and one eastbound pipeline project combined (mid-2020s dollars).
National Backbone Fiber Network
Long-haul fiber across provinces, incl. remote regions		 $5–10 billion Includes new fiber routes in rural & northern Canada and upgrades to core network capacity. (For scale, a recent Canadian Infrastructure Bank initiative pledged $3 billion toward large broadband projects [15].)
Last-Mile Broadband Access (Fiber to homes/businesses)
Urban Gigabit upgrades + Rural/Remote builds		 $15–20 billion Extending fiber or high-capacity wireless to millions of end-users. Canada’s Universal Broadband Fund of $1.7B and other programs are defraying rural build costs [16], but 10 Gb/s service likely requires additional tens of billions in fiber deployment by telecom providers.
Satellite & Other Technologies for Far North
(LEO satellites, microwave links, etc.)		 $1–2 billion To reach the most remote 1–2% of locations not feasible by fiber. (Canada invested $600 million in low-earth-orbit satellite capacity via Telesat for rural broadband [17].)
Total – Nationwide 10 Gb/s Internet ~ $30–40 billion Rough order-of-magnitude sum of public and private investment needed to achieve universal multi-gigabit connectivity.
Costs are approximate and based on multiple sources and analogues. Pipeline costs reflect recent actual projects; broadband costs are extrapolated from current programs and similar national broadband projects (e.g. Australia’s NBN at >A$50B) [18].


Pipeline Projects – Cost Drivers:

The $50 billion figure for dual pipelines reflects the considerable engineering and materials required. The Trans Mountain expansion (which is a real-world proxy for a west coast pipeline) saw its budget swell to over $30 billion by 2024 [19] due to route complexities, tunneling in mountains, enhanced marine safety requirements, and delays from legal challenges. An east coast pipeline would be even longer; while much of Energy East’s route would have repurposed existing pipe, new sections through Québec and New Brunswick and a new marine terminal were significant expenses. TransCanada’s initial estimate of $12 billion in 2013 grew to about $16 billion by 2017 [20], and if constructed today the cost could approach $20 billion given rising steel and labor costs. Additional investments at the endpoints (tank farms, dock facilities, pump stations, etc.) add to the total. It is worth noting that the federal government had to purchase the TMX pipeline for $4.5 billion in 2018 to ensure its completion, illustrating the financial challenges and cost overruns these projects can encounter [21].

Broadband 10 Gb/s – Cost Drivers:

The nationwide broadband costs are distributed across numerous projects and technologies. Fiber-optic construction costs in Canada range from roughly $5–$27 per meter (depending on terrain and whether aerial or underground) [22], which adds up quickly over thousands of kilometers. Eastern Ontario’s regional Gig Project (bringing fiber to ~250,000 rural homes) is budgeted at $1.6 billion [23], of which about $1.2 billion would need to come from public subsidies. Scaling such intensive fiber builds to all rural regions pushes the cost into the tens of billions. The federal government has committed $3.225 billion under the Universal Broadband Fund (UBF) to reach 98% of households with at least 50/10 Mb/s by 2026 [24]. However, delivering 10,000 Mb/s (10 Gb/s) to those same households implies far more fiber capacity and likely additional funding beyond the UBF. Private telecom operators would shoulder a substantial portion of urban network upgrade costs as part of their commercial fiber rollouts. For the sparsely populated far north (e.g. Nunavut, northern Labrador), low-earth-orbit satellite constellations like Starlink or OneWeb may be used; the government has already invested $85 million in testing Telesat’s LEO satellites and $600 million to subsidize satellite broadband coverage for remote areas [25]. In sum, while exact nationwide 10 Gb/s estimates vary, analogous national broadband initiatives elsewhere suggest a ballpark of $30–40 billion is reasonable. Australia’s National Broadband Network (with a mix of fiber, fixed wireless, and satellite) exceeded A$50 billion (~C$45 billion) in costs [26], and Canada’s geography is even more challenging.

Economic Impacts and Long-Term Benefits

A core consideration for any infrastructure investment is its payoff in jobs, economic growth, and public revenues. The pipeline and broadband options stimulate the economy in different ways – one by boosting a key export industry, the other by enhancing productivity and innovation across all industries. This section compares their projected economic impacts.

Table 2 – Comparison of Economic Impact Metrics: Pipelines vs. Broadband
Impact Category Pipelines to Coasts Nationwide 10 Gb/s Internet
Direct Employment (Construction Phase) ~15,000 jobs during peak construction (combined)
e.g. ~5,500 on TMX [27]; ~10,000 on Energy East [28]		 Tens of thousands of jobs across Canada (telecom technicians, construction crews, engineers).
e.g. A 250k-line rural fiber build supports ~3,000 jobs; national scale likely 10× that.
Direct Employment (Operations Phase) Hundreds of long-term jobs.
e.g. ~1000 direct/indirect permanent jobs for Energy East [29]; TMX operations staff is a few hundred.		 Thousands of long-term jobs in telecom operations and maintenance.
Network expansion may sustain increased telecom workforce; plus new jobs in digital services sector enabled by broadband.
GDP Contribution Large contribution mainly via oil output and export revenues.
Conference Board estimates TMX adds $160 billion to Canada’s GDP over 20 years [30]. Energy East would similarly add tens of billions (by enabling 1.1 Mbpd of output).		 Broad-based GDP growth from improved productivity, innovation, and new businesses.
Estimates suggest multi-gig broadband could add billions. In Eastern Ontario, a gigabit rollout is projected to increase regional GDP by up to $3 billion over 10 years [31].
Government Revenues (taxes, royalties) High, from oil taxes/royalties and pipeline taxes/tolls.
TMX expected to generate $46 billion in government revenue over 20 years [32], including $500 million/year in federal taxes once operational [33]. Energy East was touted to bring $10+ billion in tax revenues (Deloitte study) [34].		 Moderate, mostly via broader tax base and economic growth.
Accelerated growth translates into higher income and sales tax receipts over time. E.g. the Eastern Ontario project could yield $0.8–1.0 billion in incremental tax revenues in 10 years [35]. However, broadband itself doesn’t produce royalties like oil.
Trade and Market Access Enables diversification of oil exports beyond the U.S.
Building both pipelines could redirect up to $38 billion/year of oil & gas exports to global markets instead of the U.S. [36], improving trade balance and reducing dependence on one buyer.		 Enables participation in the digital global economy.
High-speed internet allows Canadian businesses in all regions to engage in e-commerce, remote work, and global services export. This can boost service exports (e.g. IT, digital media) and reduce import of services by doing more domestically (telehealth, online education, etc.).
Regional Development Benefits concentrated in energy-producing regions & pipeline corridor communities.
Alberta and SK see more oil investment; BC and NB collect property taxes and some profit-sharing (BC to get $25–50M annually from TMX) [37]. Job benefits in construction spread along the route, often in rural areas (e.g. camps for pipeline workers).		 Benefits spread nationwide, especially to rural/remote regions currently disadvantaged.
Improved connectivity can spur growth in Northern and rural communities by enabling new industries and slowing out-migration. For instance, northern BC communities expect broadband to “support rural communities to diversify and flourish” [38][39].

Pipelines – Economic Benefits:

The economic rationale for pipelines is largely to enhance Canada’s oil sector revenues and by extension the national economy. By providing access to tidewater, these pipelines let producers fetch global market prices rather than being limited to selling at a discount to the U.S. Midwest. Analysts projected that once TMX is in service, the price discount on heavy Canadian oil (Western Canadian Select) would shrink from over US$19 to around $10–12 per barrel [40], meaning Canadian producers earn significantly more per barrel. Over hundreds of thousands of barrels per day, this price uplift translates into billions annually in additional income – benefitting oil companies, employees, and governments via royalties and taxes. The federal Finance Department estimated TMX would generate about $500 million per year in extra tax revenue alone [41]. Over 20 years, the cumulative GDP boost from TMX was pegged at $160 billion, with $46 billion in government revenues at federal and provincial levels [42]. An east coast pipeline would have similar magnitude: TransCanada’s study with Deloitte projected Energy East’s construction and operation would yield over $10 billion in new tax revenues along its route [43]. In terms of jobs, pipeline construction is a significant short-term employer of skilled trades: at peak, 5,500 workers were on TMX in 2020 [44], and TransCanada forecast 10,000 direct jobs during Energy East’s development and construction [45]. Many of these jobs are localized, benefitting smaller towns on the construction spread, and include heavy equipment operators, welders, surveyors, and camp support staff. Once built, pipelines employ far fewer people (a few hundred for operations and maintenance), but they can indirectly support jobs in refining, shipping, and upstream oil extraction due to higher throughput.

Beyond direct metrics, the pipelines offer strategic trade benefits. Currently, about 80% of Canada’s oil exports (nearly 4 million bpd) go to the United States [46]. Limited pipeline capacity historically forced Canadian oil to sell at lower prices, costing the economy value – one estimate put this loss at almost 1% of GDP in a year of severe bottlenecks [47]. By building pipelines to both coasts, Canada could diversify export markets to Asia and Europe. A recent analysis by the Montréal Economic Institute imagined if the cancelled Energy East and a proposed Québec LNG project had been built: it found Canada could have redirected $38.4 billion in oil and gas exports per year away from U.S. buyers to other global customers [48]. This diversification is economically advantageous for reducing reliance on a single market and improving Canada’s trade balance. Eastern Canadian refineries (in Montréal, Lévis, Saint John) would also gain the option to process domestic Western Canadian oil instead of importing foreign crude. At one point before its cancellation, Energy East was expected to allow Eastern Canada to replace up to 700,000 bpd of imported crude with Canadian supply [49], enhancing energy security and potentially lowering input costs for those refineries.

 

Broadband – Economic Benefits:

The economic payoffs from universal 10 Gb/s broadband are more diffuse but far-reaching across all sectors. Extensive research shows that broadband connectivity boosts GDP by improving productivity, fostering innovation, and enabling new services. Each additional increment of broadband speed and penetration has been linked with higher economic growth rates. For example, one study found that ultra-fast internet infrastructure in rural Eastern Ontario would generate up to $3 billion in new regional GDP over 10 years and about $1 billion in combined federal/provincial tax revenues, easily outweighing the project’s cost [50]. On a national scale, providing urban-caliber internet to rural Canada unlocks significant consumer and producer surplus: businesses can expand online, farmers can adopt precision agriculture, individuals can access remote work and e-learning opportunities. These translate into higher incomes and output. An Accenture analysis for Canada’s telecom industry estimated that every $1 of direct GDP from telecom infrastructure results in $1.8 of total GDP impact across the value chain [51] – indicating strong multiplier effects.

While broadband doesn’t create a single “export commodity” like oil, it enables many decentralized economic activities. A software developer in a small town can build and sell applications worldwide if they have world-class internet. A call center or cloud services company might establish operations in a low-cost region of Canada, confident that connectivity is as good as in any city. Increased broadband access is associated with higher labor productivity and innovation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada’s robust networks allowed remote work to sustain economic activity, mitigating GDP losses [52]. Going to 10 Gb/s nationwide builds in even more resilience and capacity for future digital demands. Industries like telemedicine, online education, and digital media, which require high bandwidth and low latency, could flourish in all regions (including the North), contributing to local economies and reducing costs (e.g. fewer expensive medevac trips if remote diagnosis is possible via high-definition video).

Job creation from the broadband initiative is also notable. Laying fiber and installing equipment is labor-intensive. The construction phase would engage technicians, engineers, electricians, and contractors in communities across Canada. Although hard numbers for a national project are scarce, we can extrapolate: the Eastern Ontario project expected to support roughly 50 jobs per $10 million invested during rollout (mix of direct and spinoff jobs) [53] [54]. If similar ratios hold, a $30 billion program might involve on the order of 150,000 job-years (spread over several years and regions). This includes manufacturing of fiber cable and electronics (some of which might be domestic) and associated service jobs. In the long run, maintaining a greatly expanded network will require additional permanent technicians in rural areas, creating stable high-tech employment outside the big cities. More importantly, the presence of quality internet allows other businesses to thrive and hire; a rural small business might add employees once it can reliably sell online, or a northern tourism operator might grow by marketing globally and offering remote-working travelers the connectivity they need. These second-order employment effects, while harder to quantify, are a key part of broadband’s economic benefit.

In summary, the pipeline projects deliver concentrated economic gains in the oil sector and government revenues from petroleum, whereas the broadband project delivers broad economic enablement — a foundation for growth across all sectors and regions. The pipeline option might contribute more directly to GDP in the short term (simply by increasing volumes of a valuable export), but the broadband option aims to raise the productivity ceiling of the entire economy, which can yield enormous cumulative gains over time, particularly as the world economy digitizes. The choice may boil down to immediate export revenue versus long-run innovation capacity.

Social and Environmental Factors

Infrastructure projects of this magnitude invariably come with social and environmental considerations. Public acceptance, environmental sustainability, and regional equity are crucial in evaluating the two options. Here we contrast pipelines and broadband in these qualitative dimensions, including the specific regional issues of Québec’s pipeline stance and broadband needs in Northern BC.

Pipelines: Social License and Environmental Risks

Oil pipelines often face intense public scrutiny due to environmental risks. A major concern is the possibility of oil spills along the pipeline route or from tankers at the coast. Pipeline ruptures can contaminate land and water; for example, the 2010 rupture of an Enbridge pipeline in Michigan spilled diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River, costing over $1 billion in cleanup and causing lasting ecological harm. A spill in a sensitive area in Canada – be it a salmon-bearing river in BC or the Saint Lawrence River watershed in QC – would be devastating to local communities, wildlife, and livelihoods. Coastal First Nations and municipalities in BC have long voiced concerns about the increased tanker traffic from TMX; with traffic rising to 34 tankers per month in Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet [55], the risk of a marine oil spill also increases. Although mitigation measures (like tug escorts, marine safety systems) are being enhanced, the risk cannot be eliminated. In the Bay of Fundy or St. Lawrence, eastern tanker exports would introduce similar risk to fisheries and coastal ecosystems. These environmental threats make it challenging to secure social license for pipelines.

Climate change is another overarching factor. Pipelines facilitate the continued extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. Environmental groups and many citizens oppose new pipelines on the grounds that they enable higher oil sands production and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Québec’s stance on Energy East was strongly influenced by climate concerns. In 2016, Québec’s National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution insisting that upstream carbon emissions of the oil be considered in the pipeline review [56] [57]. Analysis by environmental think-tanks indicated that filling the Energy East pipeline (1.1 million bpd) would generate an additional 30–32 megatons of CO₂ emissions per year – equivalent to adding over 7 million cars to Canadian roads [58]. This clashed with Canada’s climate commitments. Québec’s political leadership at the time, reflecting these environmental priorities, demanded stricter conditions and ultimately a majority of Quebecers (nearly 60%) opposed the project in polls [59]. By 2025, public opinion in Québec has softened somewhat (one poll shows support for Energy East in QC rose from 33% in 2017 to 47% in 2023) [60], and Premier François Legault has hinted openness to “study” new pipeline ideas if they meet environmental criteria [61]. Still, the memory of past opposition means any renewed pipeline proposal would face a high bar to prove it can align with climate goals and protect local environments. The Bloc Québécois and many civil society groups remain fiercely opposed [62].

Indigenous rights and participation are also central social factors for pipelines. In Western Canada, dozens of First Nations have treaty or traditional lands along pipeline routes. Gaining their support (or at least agreement) is both a legal requirement and a moral imperative. The Trans Mountain project, for instance, signed benefit agreements with 58 Indigenous groups worth over $500 million [63], and there is ongoing dialogue about Indigenous ownership stakes in the pipeline [64]. Some Indigenous communities see pipelines as economic opportunities and sources of revenue for reinvestment, while others have opposed projects like Northern Gateway and TMX due to environmental and cultural risks, taking concerns to court. In 2016 the Federal Court of Appeal quashed Northern Gateway’s approval partly over inadequate Indigenous consultation, and the project was ultimately canceled. Any new pipelines would need to navigate these complex relationships – potentially an opportunity for Indigenous equity partnerships, but also a risk if consent is not achieved.

On the social benefits side, pipeline development can bring an economic boost to rural areas along the route during construction – local businesses (motels, restaurants, suppliers) see influxes of spending. Some communities struck benefit deals or community investment funds. For example, communities along TMX in BC are slated to receive a share of a $1 billion revenue-sharing fund over 20 years [65]. However, these short-term boons are weighed against long-term environmental stewardship of those lands and waters. Many Canadians question whether investing in 20th-century energy infrastructure fits with the 21st-century imperative for decarbonization. Thus, while pipelines offer economic value, their social license is tenuous in regions like Québec and coastal BC, where public sentiment and provincial policies prioritize environmental protection.

Broadband: Social Inclusion and Environmental Footprint

Expanding broadband connectivity generally enjoys broad public support and relatively low opposition. The “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) factor is minimal compared to pipelines – fiber-optic cables are usually buried or strung on existing utility poles with little visual impact. Wireless towers sometimes face local opposition, but a 10 Gb/s plan would rely mostly on fiber infrastructure. In fact, many communities are actively clamoring for better internet. In Northern British Columbia, for instance, local governments and First Nations have been strong advocates for connectivity, partnering with providers like CityWest (a community-owned telecom) to build new fiber links [66]. Residents in remote areas often sign up eagerly for services like SpaceX’s Starlink in the absence of terrestrial broadband, demonstrating the pent-up demand [67]. Thus, the social narrative around broadband is one of inclusion and equity – ensuring rural, northern, and Indigenous communities have the same digital opportunities as urban centers. The Government of Canada has recognized internet access as “essential” for participation in modern society [68], and aims for 100% access by 2030. There is a strong social justice component: high-speed internet can help reduce rural isolation, enable youth to remain in their hometowns for education or work, and improve outcomes for Indigenous communities by facilitating telehealth and online entrepreneurship.

Environmentally, broadband infrastructure has a relatively benign footprint. Laying fiber in the ground does disturb land, but the impact is localized and once installed, fiber has decades of lifespan transmitting data with minimal maintenance. Unlike pipelines, there’s no risk of catastrophic environmental disaster from a fiber cable. Furthermore, better internet connectivity can indirectly yield environmental benefits. One notable example is reduction in travel and transportation emissions: as more people are able to work remotely or attend virtual meetings, vehicle commuting and airline travel can decrease. A study of a rural gigabit project indicated that enabling telecommuting could reduce CO₂ emissions by an estimated 100–350 kg per user annually (by avoiding car commutes) [69]. Scaled up, such reductions contribute to climate goals. Telehealth means fewer long-distance drives or flights for medical consultations. Even e-commerce can optimize logistics compared to individuals driving to distant shopping centers.

The energy consumption of broadband networks themselves (data centers, telecom equipment) is an environmental consideration, but on balance, digital solutions are seen as key enablers of a low-carbon economy. Smart grids, precision agriculture, and IoT (Internet of Things) applications for environmental monitoring all require connectivity. By investing in broadband, Canada could bolster climate adaptation and environmental management capabilities (e.g. sensors that monitor pipeline leaks, ironically, rely on good telecom links to function).

Culturally and socially, internet access can help preserve and share heritage in remote communities. For example, Indigenous languages and knowledge in Northern BC and elsewhere can be digitized and taught online, strengthening cultural continuity. In contrast, some Indigenous leaders argued that oil pipelines and the boom-and-bust of oil expansion can disrupt traditional lifestyles and tie their economic fate to an industry that may not be sustainable in the long run [70].

One potential social challenge in a nationwide broadband rollout is ensuring affordability and digital literacy. Having a fiber line is futile if the service is too expensive for local residents or if people lack the skills to use it. Government programs would need to address subscription costs (perhaps through subsidies for low-income households or remote communities) and provide training resources so that communities can fully leverage the new connectivity. This contrasts with pipelines, where the product (oil) is not directly consumed by local populations and thus doesn’t raise issues of consumer affordability in the same way.

In summary, the broadband option aligns well with social objectives of inclusion, education, and equitable development. It faces few opponents – indeed the main criticism might come from fiscal conservatives concerned about cost, or from those who prefer wireless solutions like satellites over fiber. The environmental footprint of broadband is low and mostly positive in secondary effects. Meanwhile, pipelines, though economically beneficial, confront significant social resistance in certain regions (notably Québec’s continued skepticism and BC’s environmental concerns) and pose non-trivial environmental risks that must be carefully managed. These soft factors are crucial: a project that lacks public support can be delayed or cancelled (as Energy East was), regardless of its economic merits.

Risks and Uncertainties

Investing tens of billions in either choice carries risks. Here we outline the key risks and uncertainties associated with the pipeline corridor expansion and the national broadband project.

  • Market Risk: Pipeline returns depend on the oil market. There is a risk that global oil demand could peak and decline in the coming decades due to climate action and the shift to electric vehicles. If so, expensive new pipelines might operate below capacity, reducing their economic benefit and potentially stranding assets. In contrast, broadband demand is generally expected to grow (more data, more devices), but there is a risk that 10 Gb/s is beyond what many users need in the near term, meaning initial uptake of the full 10 Gb/s capability could be low. However, internet traffic has historically expanded to fill available capacity, and new applications (8K video, virtual reality, etc.) are likely to emerge that make use of faster speeds.
     
  • Financial Risk and Cost Overruns: As seen with TMX’s cost ballooning from $7.4 B to over $30 B [71], pipeline projects are vulnerable to delays and overruns due to regulatory hurdles, court challenges, or engineering difficulties (e.g. tunneling under mountains or rivers). The government had to provide loan guarantees and even become the owner of TMX to ensure completion [72]. For an East pipeline, similar risks exist, especially if provincial governments impose additional conditions. Broadband projects also face cost uncertainty, particularly in remote areas where terrain (permafrost, mountains) can drive up fiber deployment expense. Large telecom projects can run over budget if underestimated, though they can be scaled in phases to manage risk. The advantage is multiple entities (federal, provincial, private ISPs) share the cost, whereas a pipeline tends to be a single consortium or company bearing the bulk of risk (unless government intervenes).
     
  • Regulatory and Political Risk: Pipelines require complex approvals (Canada Energy Regulator, environmental assessments, provincial permits). Political changes can alter the fate of projects – e.g., a future government could impose stricter climate policies that make pipeline expansion untenable. The Energy East project was shelved amid a changing regulatory climate in 2017 when the National Energy Board decided to factor upstream GHG emissions into the review [73]. On the broadband side, regulatory risk is lower – telecom is federally regulated by the CRTC, which generally supports expanded service. There is some risk of policy shifts (for example, if subsidies are withdrawn or if network neutrality issues arise), but overall broadband expansion has cross-partisan support. One political risk was highlighted in BC: in 2023, during a trade spat with the U.S., the BC government temporarily balked at using an American company’s satellite service (Starlink) for rural internet on principle [74] [75], potentially slowing rural rollout. Such risks are minor compared to the interjurisdictional wrangling that pipelines entail.
     
  • Technical and Operational Risks: Pipelines carry risk of spills or leaks as discussed, which would incur cleanup costs and possibly long-term closure (Keystone Pipeline leaks in the US have led to temporary shutdowns). They are also vulnerable to sabotage or natural disasters (earthquakes, landslides). Broadband networks have risks like cyber attacks or equipment failures, but these generally result in service outages rather than environmental damage. Redundancy can be built (multiple fiber paths) to mitigate downtime risk. One technical uncertainty is how future technologies might complement or supersede parts of the broadband plan – for example, if satellite internet capacity improves dramatically, it could serve remote areas more cost-effectively than fiber, meaning some planned fiber builds might be reconsidered. Nonetheless, fiber has extremely high capacity and longevity, so it’s a safe long-term bet for core connectivity.
     
  • Opportunity Cost: From a policy perspective, choosing one investment may mean foregone benefits of the other. If Canada pours resources (financial and political capital) into cross-country pipelines, an opportunity cost is slower progress on rural broadband and digital competitiveness. Conversely, focusing on digital infrastructure might leave oil export constraints unresolved, potentially costing the country oil revenue if demand remains robust. Policymakers must consider these trade-offs. Notably, these projects are not mutually exclusive – Canada could pursue both on different timelines – but given finite public funds and urgency of climate action, there is effectively competition for priority.

Conclusion

The decision between building Alberta-to-coast pipelines and building out 10 Gb/s broadband nationwide encapsulates two different visions of Canada’s economic future. The pipeline option doubles down on Canada’s strength as a natural resource exporter, promising substantial revenue, jobs in construction, and improved market access for a commodity that has underpinned the Canadian economy for decades. It addresses a clear current bottleneck (oil transportation capacity) and could yield quick wins in terms of GDP and trade balances, especially if global oil prices are high. However, it comes with high environmental and social risks: potential spills, increased greenhouse emissions, and significant public opposition in key regions. It also faces the long-term uncertainty of the world’s transition away from fossil fuels.

The nationwide broadband option, on the other hand, invests in the digital arteries of the 21st-century economy. Its benefits are more diffuse – there is no single revenue stream to capture and point to, but rather a wide enabling effect that can uplift communities and industries across the country. It aligns with a knowledge-based, low-carbon economic trajectory, potentially yielding innovation, efficiency, and social equity gains for decades to come. It carries relatively lower environmental risk and generally enjoys public support, although it requires a significant up-front investment and careful coordination between governments and private sector players. The returns on this investment, in terms of productivity and quality of life, while real, are somewhat harder to quantify and will accrue gradually.

In weighing these options, policymakers must consider regional dynamics. Alberta and Saskatchewan strongly favor pipelines to support their oil industries, whereas British Columbia and Québec have been more hesitant or opposed, prioritizing environmental concerns and alternative economic paths. Those same less fossil-fuel-intensive regions stand to gain immensely from digital infrastructure – for example, Atlantic Canada or Northern Canada could overcome geographic disadvantages through connectivity. It may not be an either-or choice: Canada could pursue a balanced approach, but budgetary and political realities mean one initiative might take precedence. As of 2025, the Trans Mountain pipeline is nearly complete, locking in the west coast outlet, while an east coast pipeline remains politically fraught. Meanwhile, the federal government is already investing in broadband expansion, though not yet at the 10 Gb/s level envisioned here.

Ultimately, the long-term economic benefits of each approach are substantial but in different domains – one in traditional resource economics, the other in digital economy potential. The pipeline strategy yields tangible export dollars and energy security dividends, but also carbon emissions and potential environmental costs. The broadband strategy yields a modernized, inclusive economy and likely a more sustainable growth path, but requires patience to see the full payoff. A professional, evidence-based assessment such as this makes clear that any decision should integrate not just cost-benefit analysis, but also the values and vision Canadians have for their future. Whether Canada’s next “nation-building” project is steel pipe or fiber-optic cable, the choice will resonate for generations.

Economic Benefits Summary: Nationwide 10 Gbps Internet Over 20 Years

Component Amount (CAD) Notes
Direct GDP (Construction) $24.5 billion 70% of $35 billion investment flows into wages, equipment, etc.
Operational GDP $245 billion 7:1 return over 20 years, driven by productivity and new businesses.
Data Center GDP $10 billion 50 new data centers, leveraging BC’s low electricity costs.
Total GDP Contribution $250 billion Adjusted to avoid overlap, conservative estimate.
Tax Revenues $63.75 billion $43.75 billion from broader economy + $20 billion from data centers.
Electricity Cost Savings $3.24 billion BC’s $0.0523/kWh vs. $0.0847/kWh in Northern Virginia, 50 data centers.

Key Assumptions

Economic Benefits Summary: Alberta-to-Coast Pipelines Over 20 Years

Component Amount (CAD) Notes
Direct GDP (Construction) $39.2 billion 70% of $56 billion investment (TMX: $34B, Energy East: $20B, terminals: $2B).
Operational GDP $260 billion TMX: $160B (Conference Board); Energy East: $100B (5:1 return).
Trade-Related GDP $50 billion 20% of $38.4B/year export value over 15 years, capped to avoid overlap.
Total GDP Contribution $300 billion Adjusted for overlap, conservative estimate.
Tax Revenues $57 billion TMX: $46B; Energy East: $10B; terminals: $1B.
Electricity Cost Savings $0.648 billion 10 data centers, BC’s $0.0523/kWh vs. $0.0847/kWh elsewhere.

Key Assumptions

References

  1. Business in Vancouver – “$20B TMX loan raises new questions over pipeline costs” (Nov 2024). Cost rose from $7.4B to $34.2B by late 2024. Link.
  2. Reuters – “Trans Mountain expansion may not give long-term price relief to Canada's booming oil output” (Feb 21, 2024). Details TMX capacity (590k bpd) and cost C$30.9B; predicts narrowing of oil price discount by ~$7-9/barrel. Link.
  3. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Provides Energy East cost ($15.7B) and Quebec opposition details; notes poll of 65% Canadians (47% in QC) supporting revival. Link.
  4. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). TC Energy press call: Energy East would cost $12B, create 10k jobs, and yield $10B in tax revenues; capacity 1.1 Mbpd. Link.
  5. Reuters – “Trans Mountain expansion may not give long-term price relief to Canada's booming oil output” (Feb 21, 2024). TMX expansion increases tanker calls at Vancouver’s port. Link.
  6. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Illustrative details for Energy East and proposed Atlantic pipeline. Link.
  7. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Summarizes federal broadband strategy, including the Universal Broadband Fund. Link.
  8. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Provides context on underserved households requiring improved broadband. Link.
  9. BC Government – “High-speed internet coming to more northern B.C. communities” (May 15, 2024). Describes project connecting 1,300 households and aims to connect every home by 2027. Link.
  10. BC Government – “Rural B.C. Connectivity Benefits Study” (June 2024). Finds investing in rural broadband supports positive economic outcomes. Link.
  11. Business in Vancouver – “$20B TMX loan raises new questions over pipeline costs” (Nov 2024). TMX expansion cost reached an estimated C$30.9B by 2024. Link.
  12. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Original Energy East estimate was ~$12B in 2013. Link.
  13. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Energy East later projected around $15.7B, potentially up to $20B when adjusted for inflation. Link.
  14. Reuters – “Trans Mountain expansion may not give long-term price relief to Canada's booming oil output” (Feb 21, 2024). TMX’s marine terminal upgrades estimated at ~$0.5–1B. Link.
  15. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Details a Canadian Infrastructure Bank initiative pledging $3B for broadband projects. Link.
  16. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Notes Canada’s Universal Broadband Fund of $1.7B to help defray rural build costs. Link.
  17. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Highlights government investment of $600M in LEO satellite capacity for rural broadband. Link.
  18. IEEE Spectrum – “Australia's Troubled National Broadband Network” (May 2022). Illustrates challenges and high costs of a nationwide broadband rollout (NBN >A$50B). Link.
  19. Business in Vancouver – “$20B TMX loan raises new questions over pipeline costs” (Nov 2024). TMX's budget swelled to over $30B by 2024 due to various complexities. Link.
  20. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). TransCanada’s initial Energy East estimate increased from $12B to ~$16B by 2017. Link.
  21. Reuters – “Trans Mountain expansion may not give long-term price relief to Canada's booming oil output” (Feb 21, 2024). Illustrates cost overruns and the need for the federal government to purchase TMX for $4.5B in 2018. Link.
  22. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Fiber-optic construction cost range in Canada (approx. $5–$27 per meter). Link.
  23. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Regional Gig Project estimated at $1.6B for 95% coverage. Link.
  24. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Federal commitment of $3.225B under the Universal Broadband Fund. Link.
  25. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Highlights additional funding needed for satellite broadband coverage in remote areas. Link.
  26. IEEE Spectrum – “Australia's Troubled National Broadband Network” (May 2022). Illustrates NBN costs exceeding A$50B (~C$45B). Link.
  27. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). Approximately 5,500 jobs on TMX. Link.
  28. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). Approximately 10,000 jobs for Energy East. Link.
  29. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). Estimates ~1000 permanent jobs for Energy East operations. Link.
  30. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). TMX expected to add $160B to Canada’s GDP over 20 years. Link.
  31. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). A gigabit rollout in Eastern Ontario projected to increase regional GDP by up to $3B over 10 years. Link.
  32. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). TMX projected to generate $46B in government revenue over 20 years. Link.
  33. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). TMX estimated to provide $500M/year in federal taxes once operational. Link.
  34. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). Energy East touted to bring over $10B in tax revenues. Link.
  35. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Project estimates $0.8–1.0B incremental tax revenues in 10 years. Link.
  36. Montréal Economic Institute – “Diversifying Our Exports by Building Energy Infrastructure in Quebec” (Mar 2025). Analysis shows pipelines could redirect up to $38B/year of oil & gas exports. Link.
  37. Reuters – “Trans Mountain expansion may not give long-term price relief to Canada's booming oil output” (Feb 21, 2024). BC to receive $25–50M annually from TMX revenue sharing. Link.
  38. BC Government – “High-speed internet coming to more northern B.C. communities” (May 15, 2024). Northern BC communities expect broadband to support economic diversification. Link.
  39. BC Government – “Rural B.C. Connectivity Benefits Study” (June 2024). Highlights broadband as a tool for regional development in northern communities. Link.
  40. Reuters – “Trans Mountain expansion may not give long-term price relief to Canada's booming oil output” (Feb 21, 2024). Price discount on heavy Canadian oil projected to shrink from over US$19 to around $10–12 per barrel. Link.
  41. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). TMX to generate about $500M per year in extra tax revenue. Link.
  42. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). Cumulative GDP boost of TMX pegged at $160B over 20 years, with $46B in government revenues. Link.
  43. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). Energy East projected to yield over $10B in new tax revenues along its route. Link.
  44. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). TMX peak employment estimated around 5,500 workers. Link.
  45. Reuters – “TransCanada: Energy East pipeline construction to create 10,000 jobs” (Sept 10, 2013). TransCanada forecast 10,000 direct jobs for Energy East. Link.
  46. Montréal Economic Institute – “Diversifying Our Exports by Building Energy Infrastructure in Quebec” (Mar 2025). Analysis indicates pipelines could redirect up to $38B/year of oil & gas exports away from the U.S. Link.
  47. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Estimates suggest limited pipeline capacity may cost Canada nearly 1% of GDP in lost potential revenue. Link.
  48. Montréal Economic Institute – “Diversifying Our Exports by Building Energy Infrastructure in Quebec” (Mar 2025). Reports that building both pipelines could redirect $38.4B in exports away from U.S. buyers. Link.
  49. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Energy East was expected to allow replacement of up to 700,000 bpd of imported crude with Canadian oil. Link.
  50. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Gigabit rollout in Eastern Ontario projected to increase regional GDP by up to $3B over 10 years. Link.
  51. Accenture for CWTA – “Investing in Canada’s Digital Infrastructure: The Economic Impact of Broadband” (2020). Every $1 of direct telecom GDP yields $1.8 of total GDP impact. Link.
  52. Accenture for CWTA – “Investing in Canada’s Digital Infrastructure: The Economic Impact of Broadband” (2020). Highlights broadband’s role during the COVID-19 pandemic in sustaining economic activity. Link.
  53. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Estimates ~50 jobs per $10M invested during rollout. Link.
  54. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Further supporting the regional job creation estimates for broadband projects. Link.
  55. Reuters – “Trans Mountain expansion may not give long-term price relief to Canada's booming oil output” (Feb 21, 2024). Notes increase in tanker traffic in Vancouver’s Burrard Inlet. Link.
  56. Pembina Institute – “Pembina reacts to Quebec's climate resolution on Energy East” (Oct 2016). Notes Québec’s mandate to consider upstream carbon emissions in pipeline reviews. Link.
  57. Pembina Institute – “Pembina reacts to Quebec's climate resolution on Energy East” (Oct 2016). Further details on the resolution requiring upstream emissions be considered. Link.
  58. Pembina Institute – “Pembina reacts to Quebec's climate resolution on Energy East” (Oct 2016). States that filling Energy East would add 30–32 Mt CO₂/yr. Link.
  59. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Notes that nearly 60% of Quebecers opposed Energy East in polls. Link.
  60. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Poll shows support for Energy East in Quebec rose from 33% in 2017 to 47% in 2023. Link.
  61. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Premier François Legault hinted at studying new pipeline ideas if they meet environmental criteria. Link.
  62. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Notes persistent opposition from civil society and the Bloc Québécois. Link.
  63. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). Documented benefit agreements with 58 Indigenous groups valued at over $500M. Link.
  64. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). Mentions ongoing dialogue about Indigenous ownership stakes. Link.
  65. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). Identifies a $1B revenue-sharing fund for communities along the TMX route. Link.
  66. BC Government – “High-speed internet coming to more northern B.C. communities” (May 15, 2024). Cites strong local advocacy for fiber connectivity among First Nations and municipal leaders. Link.
  67. Rocky Mountain Goat (BC) – “Northern communities need internet connectivity – but premier is preoccupied” (Feb 21, 2025). Discusses demand for Starlink and other satellite-based services in remote areas. Link.
  68. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Highlights internet access as essential for modern society. Link.
  69. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Notes potential CO₂ reductions of 100–350 kg per user per year through telecommuting. Link.
  70. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Highlights concerns of Indigenous communities over pipelines disrupting traditional lifestyles. Link.
  71. Business in Vancouver – “$20B TMX loan raises new questions over pipeline costs” (Nov 2024). TMX’s cost escalated from $7.4B to over $30B. Link.
  72. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). Describes the government’s intervention in purchasing TMX. Link.
  73. Pembina Institute – “Pembina reacts to Quebec's climate resolution on Energy East” (Oct 2016). National Energy Board review of upstream emissions. Link.
  74. Rocky Mountain Goat (BC) – “Northern communities need internet connectivity – but premier is preoccupied” (Feb 21, 2025). Discusses the BC government's stance on using Starlink for rural internet. Link.
  75. Rocky Mountain Goat (BC) – “Northern communities need internet connectivity – but premier is preoccupied” (Feb 21, 2025). Further commentary on the political risk regarding satellite usage for broadband. Link.
  76. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Confirms Energy East cost details. Link.
  77. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Provides poll details on Quebec support for Energy East. Link.
  78. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). Documents peak construction employment of 5,500 workers. Link.
  79. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). Mentions 58 Indigenous benefit agreements totaling $500M. Link.
  80. Government of Canada – “Morneau Highlights Economic Benefits of Trans Mountain Expansion” (Feb 10, 2020). States $46B in government revenue over 20 years from TMX. Link.
  81. Montréal Economic Institute – “Diversifying Our Exports by Building Energy Infrastructure in Quebec” (Mar 2025). Suggests pipelines could redirect $38.4B/yr from the U.S. Link.
  82. Pembina Institute – “Pembina reacts to Quebec's climate resolution on Energy East” (Oct 2016). Reiterates the environmental impact of Energy East. Link.
  83. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Mentions the $1.7B Universal Broadband Fund as part of the national strategy. Link.
  84. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). Notes the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s $3B commitment for broadband projects. Link.
  85. Parliament of Canada – “Deployment of Broadband Internet in Rural and Remote Areas” (Nov 2023). States the goal of 50/10 Mbps to all households by 2030. Link.
  86. BC Government – “High-speed internet coming to more northern B.C. communities” (May 15, 2024). Provides funding details and connectivity targets in northern BC. Link.
  87. BC Government – “High-speed internet coming to more northern B.C. communities” (May 15, 2024). Breakdown of funding: Fed, BC, and CityWest contributions. Link.
  88. BC Government – “Rural B.C. Connectivity Benefits Study” (June 2024). Confirms that broadband investment supports economic growth in rural regions. Link.
  89. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Describes the Eastern Ontario Gig Project’s projected $1.6B cost. Link.
  90. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Projects regional GDP increases and tax revenue impacts. Link.
  91. Eastern Ontario Regional Network – “Economic Benefits of Investing in Basic vs. Gigabit Broadband” (Oct 2020). Notes telecommuting could reduce per capita CO₂ emissions by 100–350 kg. Link.
  92. Accenture for CWTA – “Investing in Canada’s Digital Infrastructure: The Economic Impact of Broadband” (2020). Reports a $74.5B contribution to GDP from telecom, representing 3.7% of Canada's GDP. Link.
  93. Accenture for CWTA – “Investing in Canada’s Digital Infrastructure: The Economic Impact of Broadband” (2020). States every $1 of direct telecom GDP results in $1.8 of total GDP impact. Link.
  94. Accenture for CWTA – “Investing in Canada’s Digital Infrastructure: The Economic Impact of Broadband” (2020). Highlights the importance of advanced broadband for post-COVID recovery. Link.
  95. Government of Canada – “On track to exceed high-speed Internet goal (98% by 2026)” (2023). Confirms federal broadband targets with 98% of households by 2026. Link.
  96. IEEE Spectrum – “Australia's Troubled National Broadband Network” (May 2022). Notes Australia’s NBN cost challenges and budget overruns. Link.
  97. IEEE Spectrum – “Australia's Troubled National Broadband Network” (May 2022). Further commentary on NBN costs, supporting the broadband cost estimates. Link.
  98. Rocky Mountain Goat (BC) – “Northern communities need internet connectivity – but premier is preoccupied” (Feb 21, 2025). Highlights popularity of Starlink in northern BC. Link.
  99. Rocky Mountain Goat (BC) – “Northern communities need internet connectivity – but premier is preoccupied” (Feb 21, 2025). Cites criticism of using US-based satellite services for rural internet. Link.
  100. Resource Works – “Billions lost in ditched resource projects” (2023). Confirms details on Energy East cost estimates and associated challenges. Link.