What is Alberta proposing?
In early October, Alberta’s Premier, Danielle Smith, announced that the province will spend C$14 million to develop and submit a proposal for a new west-coast pipeline reaching the Pacific Ocean through Prince Rupert or Kitimat. The target filing date is 2026 for federal fast-track review. Alberta has named several midstream companies as advisors, with no private investors nor builders committing to the project. According to the Premier, the pipeline could generate up to C$20 billion a year to Canada’s economy by diversifying exports to Asia.
Premiers and Mayors Push Back
British Columbia promptly started pushing back against the project. Premier David Eby declared that he would not support building a new pipeline from Alberta. This prompted Premier Smith to label that act “un-Canadian” and “unconstitutional”. Premier Eby warned that this project could cause significant risks to the “fragile consensus” over resource development, and that the proposal should first secure proponents, funding, and environmental assessment approval.
Prince Rupert’s mayor, Herb Pond, commented that the project remains “too speculative” and that “if an oil pipeline ever does make it past the social, environmental and regulatory rigour needed to be viable, we will be ready, but it is too early and too speculative an idea to absorb any of our energy.” The mayor said that his focus would remain on ongoing projects such as the rebuilding of the water system, replacement of old bridges, new housing, and sewage treatment.
“Not Through Our Water”
Various indigenous leaders have also voiced their opposition to such a project. The Gitxaała Nation which has territory near Prince Rupert, represented by the elected Chief Councillor of Gitxaała Nation Linda Innes, opposes any pipeline going through its lands or waters. The Lax Kw’alaams First Nation whose territory is situated north of Prince Rupert stated that such a proposal would threaten the environment and contravene Canada’s legal obligations to Indigenous peoples.
Why the West Feels “Left Out”
For many western Canadians, and specifically Albertans, the story of alienation starts with the National Energy Program introduced in 1980 by Pierre Trudeau. The federal government moved to reshape pricing, revenue-sharing, and ownership of oil during one of the most volatile periods of the energy market. In Alberta, the program was viewed as a federal overreach into provincial matters and a direct attack on oil related jobs and investments. The province responded by challenging parts of the program in court, slowing approvals on oil-sands megaprojects. Estimates of lost revenue and economic damage vary between sources but the consensus remains that this created a new aspect in Canadian internal politics.
The western dissatisfaction along with the Progressive Conservative’s government constitutional gambits birthed the Reform Party in 1987. This political protest movement was led by Preston Manning with the slogan “The West Wants In”. The party pushed for fiscal restraint, decentralization, and a rebalanced confederation. The most dominant demand was the Triple-E Senate (Equal, Elected, Effective) for smaller western provinces not to be ousted by Central Canada on national matters such as energy. The Reform’s party rise paralleled the Meech Lake Accord, a failed attempt to win Quebec’s consent for revising the Canadian Constitution in 1987. Later, in 1992, the Charlottetown Accord was another vain attempt by PM Mulroney rejected by Canadian voters in a referendum with 54.3% voting “No”. These accords boosted the non-Quebec grievances and propelled the party into Official Opposition status in the 1990s. The party morphed into the Canadian Alliance in 2000 and officially merged with the Progressive Conservatives to create the Conservative Party of Canada in 2003 under Stephen Harper.
The western alienation predates oil debates with policy fights over freight rates with the Crow Rate and 1897-1990s reforms. This divide over policy reinforces a view that federal rules were written in and for central Canada. Moreover, representation debates pushed a narrative of structural unfairness in western perspectives.
How Has the Situation Changed?
Looking at the last decade of Canadian history, we see a graveyard of high-profile pipeline projects such as the Northern Gateway pipeline and the Energy East.
The Northern Gateway pipeline was a C$7.9 billion approved pipeline project with certain conditions imposed by federal regulators that got cancelled in 2016 by the Liberal government. The Trudeau cabinet revoked previous permits due to a “strong” Indigenous and environmental opposition. Reality shows that this caused a loss of an estimated C$300 billion in economic activity over its lifetime.
The Energy East was a proposed C$15.7 billion project transporting oil from Alberta to the eastern province of New Brunswick. It was later cancelled in 2017 by TC Energy due to heavy regulatory and environmental opposition, particularly coming from Quebec.
The only project that survived the scythe of opposition and started its service was the Trans Mountain Expansion, after years of delay and going massively over budget.
In addition, we find Bill C-48, a bill that blocks large crude oil exports from the northern coasts Alberta now targets. For Albertans, this policy feels like a direct jab at their economic products. For coastal communities and environment activists, it is but consistent risk management that adheres to local stewardship obligations.
Ripples Across the Union
Edmonton frames the pipeline project as nation-building. Victoria frames it as a threat to the fragile consensus on LNG projects and coastal protection. Edmonton pushes and Victoria rallies: making changes to Bill C-48 and federal review rules would be politically costly.
Alberta’s plan is a political gambit that would reignite the conversation on whether and how Canada should expand its oil production. Success of such ambitions not only demands rigorous routing, taker-safety concessions, and Indigenous approval but also navigating the tumultuous waters of interprovincial politics and federal laws. As of now, such a project requires meticulous planning and multi-level consensus to not fall in the deep well of “almost” projects.
