Alberta throws down pipeline gauntlet

Danielle Smith’s pipeline plan forces Canada to decide whether energy security or climate ideology will define its future

Interview requests

Alberta’s push for a new pipeline to the B.C. coast has reignited one of Canada’s most divisive battles—pitting provincial ambitions for oil exports against fierce opposition from British Columbia, First Nations and Ottawa’s political realities.

The clash comes just weeks after Prime Minister Mark Carney hinted a pipeline could be considered among Ottawa’s next round of “nation-building” projects. While it didn’t make the government’s initial list, Carney left the door open and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wasted no time seizing on that opening.

Smith’s plan would ship crude from Alberta to Prince Rupert or Kitimat, opening routes to Asia and Europe. Tankers could cross the Pacific directly to Asian markets or sail south through the Panama Canal to reach Europe, a longer, costlier route, but one that would diversify markets beyond the United States. Smith pledged $14 million for early planning and suggested federal approval could come as early as next month, with final approval by May 2026.

Alberta produced about 4.3 million barrels of oil per day in July, and oil and gas make up more than a quarter of its GDP. The province depends on exports for billions in revenue that also feed federal coffers and equalization payments. With forecasts showing pipelines at full capacity by 2030, Smith argues new projects are essential to avoid bottlenecks that could choke growth and undermine Canada’s ability to compete globally.

The B.C. route is not Alberta’s only move. This summer, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario signed a memorandum of understanding to explore a new east–west interprovincial pipeline to replace Line 5, the aging Enbridge line that carries Western Canadian crude oil and natural gas liquids through the U.S. to refineries in Sarnia, Ont. Sarnia is a critical refining hub that supplies fuel to Ontario, Quebec and parts of the U.S. Midwest. The proposed new line would also end at Sarnia, but unlike Line 5, it would run entirely through Canadian territory.

Both projects reflect a broader provincial push to expand infrastructure and reduce dependence on U.S. routes.

Alberta’s push, however, collides with entrenched opposition. B.C. Premier David Eby called Smith’s proposal a taxpayer-funded fantasy with no private-sector backer and no social licence. Coastal First Nations leaders reinforced that view, warning of catastrophic spill risks and reminding Smith their regions had already rejected the failed Northern Gateway pipeline. “Premier Smith’s continued talk of oil pipelines and tankers, and the risk of a catastrophic oil spill in B.C.’s coastal waters, is not nation-building,” said Marilyn Slett of the Heiltsuk Nation. “It risks the goodwill and support of First Nations for more realistic and economically valuable projects in B.C. and beyond.”

Even if political opposition could be overcome, the economics look grim. Energy experts warn that no private company will gamble on another pipeline under current conditions. Costs are soaring, regulations drag on for years, and the politics are toxic. The Trans Mountain expansion stands as a cautionary tale: what began as a $7.4-billion project became a $34-billion federal bailout after Kinder Morgan walked away. For investors, the message is clear—new pipelines in Canada are a losing bet without massive government support or a fundamental rethink of the regulatory process.

That leaves Carney with a hard choice. Many Liberal MPs, particularly in Quebec and urban Ontario, oppose new oil infrastructure on ideological climate grounds. Ottawa remains formally committed to cutting emissions 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and to reaching net-zero by 2050. But while Carney has already shifted emphasis, softening enforcement while keeping the pledges in place, approving a major new pipeline would collide directly with those commitments.

Public opinion only deepens the challenge. Polls show strong support for pipelines in the Prairies, more cautious backing in Ontario, and entrenched resistance in Quebec and B.C., a split that mirrors the country’s broader regional divides.

If Carney bankrolls Smith’s plan, he faces backlash from his caucus and climate-first voters. If he refuses, he reinforces Alberta’s belief that Ottawa will never respect its economic lifeblood. Either way, the divisions deepen.

Smith calls her push to build a pipeline nation-building. Her critics call it reckless. But what is hard to deny is that Canada’s energy future cannot be decided by wishful thinking. Pipelines either get built or they don’t—and that decision will reveal more about this country’s priorities than a dozen policy speeches. For the rest of Canada, the stakes are just as high: billions in federal revenues, jobs and energy security are at stake.

Alberta has thrown down the gauntlet. The rest of Canada will have to decide whether to pick it up.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.