From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The latest war of words over a pipeline in Canada is between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who seeks the construction of a pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to export facilities on the Pacific coast, and British Columbia Premier David Eby who is foursquare against it.

Smith argues the pipeline is needed to break the U.S. market-lock on Alberta oil, which the United States buys at a discount compared to world prices. Smith argues that increased trade in oil and gas—at higher prices—would be good for Alberta’s economy and Canada’s national economy, and can be done while protecting the environment in both provinces. Eby denies virtually all these claims.

More specifically, Premier Eby makes four arguments against a new pipeline, and all are incorrect.

First, he argues, any pipeline would pose unmitigated risks to B.C.’s coastal environment. But in reality, the data are clear—oil transport off Canada’s coasts is very safe (since the mid-1990s there has not been a single major spill from oil tankers or other vessels in Canadian waters). He also simultaneously argues that it’s pointless to build a new pipeline from Alberta because B.C.’s waters are protected by Bill C-48, the “tanker ban” bill enacted by the Trudeau government in 2017. But in fact, because Bill C-48 only applies to Canadian tankers, a regular stream of oil tankers and large fuel-capacity ships cruise up and down the B.C. coast (between Alaska and other U.S. ports) with stupendous safety records.

Second, Eby argues that B.C.’s First Nations oppose any such pipeline. But in reality, such opposition is quite contingent. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project (TMX), which has increased shipping capacity from Alberta to the west coast, has signed agreements with 81 Indigenous community groups (in both provinces) worth $657 million and produced more than $4.8 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses.

Third, Eby claims that Smith’s proposal is not “real” because no private-sector companies have proposed to build the pipeline. And he’s partly right—no rational investor would look at the regulatory barricade facing pipeline construction and spend the time and money to propose a project. Those applications cost money and lots of it. In 2017, according to TC Energy,before it retracted its Energy East/Eastern proposals due largely to regulatory barriers, the company had spent more than C$1 billion trying to get permits. In a 2016 report, Enbridge listed pre-construction expenditures (which include crafting proposals) of up to US$1.5 billion to build its three proposed pipeline projects. These costs will not have gotten cheaper since then. But even so, the Alberta government’s pipeline proposal has the backing of an advisory group, which includes energy companies Enbridge, Trans Mountain and South Bow—likely because they want to invest in the project after there’s some assurance it will survive the regulatory blockade.

Finally, Eby’s claim that there’s no market demand for new pipelines (which implies there will be no investors) is unsubstantiated. According to S&P Global, Canadian oilsands production will reach a record annual average of 3.5 million barrels of oil per day (b/d) in 2025, five per cent higher than 2024. By 2030, production could top 3.9 million b/d, 500,000 b/d higher than 2024 (although this assumes the federal cap on emissions, imposed by the Trudeau government, does not curtail production as predicted). This profit potential will almost certainly attract investors, if they can overcome the regulatory blockade.

It’s fine, of course, for Premier Eby to look out for the people of B.C. as best he sees fit—that’s his job, after all. But it’s also his job to recognize the limits of his authority. When looking at the TMX project, the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that B.C. does not have the authority to block infrastructure of national importance, including pipelines.

But as the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion but not entitled to your own facts. Premier Eby’s objections to another Alberta pipeline are rooted in fallacy, not fact. The Carney government should recognize this fact and decide whether or not another pipeline to B.C. waters is in the “national interest,” which is apparently how you get a permit to build major projects in Canada these days.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute