On October 1st, 2025, the Alberta government announced its intention to develop a proposal for a new crude oil pipeline to transport raw bitumen to the north Pacific coast, where it would be loaded on tankers destined for Asia. Alberta committed $14 million in public funds for this effort, in the hopes of attracting private investors by strong-arming the federal government into repealing or abandoning key environmental and climate safeguards.
Premier Danielle Smith held an attention-grabbing press conference, flanked by provincial ministers and industry representatives, to lay out their hopes for this potential pipeline project – which would require lifting the federal Oil Tanker Moratorium Act to allow crude oil supertankers to dock or anchor in northern BC coastal communities for the first time. Since then, there has been a steady stream of news coverage and commentary about Alberta’s latest pipe dream.
Unfortunately, the announcement (and many subsequent conversations in the media and elsewhere) have failed to acknowledge some important realities.
As BC Premier David Eby stated in his response, at this point Alberta’s pipeline idea is “entirely taxpayer-funded, has no private sector proponent, is not a real project, and is incredibly alarming to British Columbians, including First Nations along the coast.” Indeed, Coastal First Nations responded swiftly to reaffirm their staunch opposition to any oil pipeline and tankers project proposed through their territories, as did many others in BC.
Premier Smith is using the promise of unproven economic benefits from a new export pipeline as a case to eliminate or weaken federal legal protections that the oil and gas industry doesn’t like. But the legal, economic and climate realities don’t match the political rhetoric.
This blog provides a reality-check on five key issues that must be central to the conversation about the idea of a proposed pipeline to the BC coast.
Jump to:
Economic reality
Before considering a new crude oil pipeline to the northwest coast, we should understand what is happening with the one we just bought and built: the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX).
TMX was initially proposed in 2013 by then owner Kinder Morgan. At the time, the estimated cost of the project was $5.4 billion. The final cost when it was completed in 2024 was a staggering $34 billion.
These costs cannot be blamed on overly restrictive federal laws, as the oil industry is suggesting: TMX (like Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project) was reviewed under a stripped-down federal review process mandated by the government of then- Prime Minister Stephen Harper – and became one of the reasons that the National Energy Board was modernized – it wasn’t working for anyone.
The initial TMX approval by the federal government in 2016 was quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2018 for deficient Indigenous consultation and failing to assess the impacts of marine shipping. Anyone hoping to attract private sector investment to a new crude oil pipeline project should remember what happened next: Kinder Morgan decided to walk away. As Richard Masson, a fellow with the University of Calgary’s policy school and former head of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission stated at the time: “It’s very difficult to imagine anyone else stepping up where Kinder Morgan feared to tread.”
In 2018, the Canadian government bailed out TMX by purchasing it.
Canadians have loaned Trans Mountain nearly $40 billion since 2018 (more detail here). This loan will never be repaid – as Trans Mountain’s tolls only cover 45% of the cost, leaving a $20 billion loss to be absorbed by TMX’s owners, the Canadian public. This represents a direct subsidy to the oil companies who are TMX’s only customers and who are the primary beneficiaries of the pipeline.
These same oil companies are reporting historical levels of profits and production, and can afford to pay in full for their pipeline but instead are trying to increase the public subsidy for TMX.
Meanwhile, as other countries around the world are rapidly shifting their energy economies toward renewables, Canada risks ending up with yet another stranded asset. As Simon Fraser University Professor Anil Hira noted, “For us to make 30- or 40-year bets on an industry that by all predictions is going to decline just doesn’t make any economic sense.”
In short, the reason there is no commercial proponent for a new pipeline is because it does not make commercial sense. Of course, the oil companies will gladly accept another gift from the Canadian public. The question is: should you and I pay for it?
On top of concerns about taxpayer funding, any discussion about a potential northwest pipeline and tanker project must acknowledge the significant risk that it would pose to BC’s economy. One of the biggest worries about Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline was the threat of an oil spill in the Fraser River or its tributaries, a world-renowned salmon-producing river system that supports both commercial and recreational fisheries. Introducing large crude oil tankers along the north Pacific coast could also jeopardize a thriving coastal economy and livelihoods in sectors like tourism, fisheries and seafood processing, transportation and conservation.
Ocean-based activities contribute over $21 billion to BC’s gross domestic product (GDP), and employ over 196,000 people. In the Great Bear Rainforest on the north coast, Indigenous-led conservation initiatives and major investments in sustainable development over the past two decades have supported over 1,400 permanent jobs, led to the creation and acquisition of 140 businesses, and attracted $444 million in investments to the coast.
Much of this progress and collaboration toward a sustainable coastal economy could be at risk if there were an oil spill in these sensitive coastal waters.
Federal law reality
Alberta’s pipeline announcement repeatedly mentioned the purported impact that federal laws and policies have had on investment in oil and gas development. During the press conference, Premier Smith referred to “nine bad laws” that her government would like to see overturned or overhauled to attract private investors for a bitumen pipeline.
These federal laws and regulations – including the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, the Impact Assessment Act (formerly Bill C-69) and the yet-to-be-implemented Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Pollution Cap – were developed to safeguard communities and ecosystems, Canadians’ health and safety, and a stable climate.
On the tanker ban:
This key federal law prohibits oil tankers carrying crude oil or persistent oil products from docking, loading or unloading in north coast communities from the Alaska border to the mainland coast adjacent to the northern tip of Vancouver Island, in the world-renowned Great Bear Rainforest. It protects the waters of Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance, sometimes referred to as the Great Bear Sea.
The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act was passed in 2019, but a policy moratorium has been in place since 1972, along with a Voluntary Tanker Exclusion Zone negotiated with the U.S. in 1985 that keeps Alaskan vessels outside of sensitive northern inside waters as well.
Coastal First Nations have fought for over 50 years to keep the coast and their territories oil spill-free – and they certainly are not going to stop now. In addition to the ban under Canadian law, Indigenous laws have also banned crude oil tankers in these waters, which many coastal communities depend on for their livelihoods, sustenance, and cultural and spiritual values.
Coastal First Nations have reiterated that they “remain committed to upholding Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to safeguard our coast in the national interest of all Canadians.” Lifting the ban, for this or any other proposed project, would face severe political and legal backlash and undo decades of work to protect the coast, one of Canada’s greatest natural assets.
On the Impact Assessment Act (IAA):
Also passed in 2019, the IAA is Canada’s tool for reviewing the environmental, social and economic impacts of major projects and proposals. The Alberta government has repeatedly challenged this legislation – both in the courts and in the media – claiming that it hinders investment and makes it extremely difficult to get new oil and gas projects built.
As a result of political pressure, Canada appears to be abandoning federal impact assessment. Since 2011 we have gone from thousands of federal assessments to only a handful per year, and last year only one project required a federal assessment.
As we’ve written previously, the IAA is by no means a perfect law – but without it, Canada risks making short-sighted, uninformed decisions that jeopardize the health of the environment and our communities. Our recent report, An Ounce of Prevention, highlights the types of disasters that can result from exempting major projects from robust environmental regulation and assessment processes.
Canada seems further poised to backtrack on environmental laws through its new fast-tracking law Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. Under it, if a proposal is designated as a project of national interest, it could essentially be approved before government experts have looked at it and with no independent oversight. Instead of undergoing a thorough review with opportunities for public input, designated projects will be “pre-approved” and may be exempted from assessment and from other laws such as the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act or Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has already taken several troubling steps to weaken environmental protection in the name of boosting Canada’s economy – from cancelling or weakening key climate policies to creating pathways for major projects to bypass environmental rules. In this context, further weakening the IAA is not just unnecessary but also puts the very foundation of Canada’s environmental legal safety net at risk.
On the emissions cap:
Much of Premier Smith’s ire these days has been focused on the proposed federal oil and gas sector emissions cap. During the pipeline announcement, she repeatedly referred to the proposed cap as one of the “bad laws” that the government needs to “get rid of” – even though this regulation has never made it past a first draft.
In reality, the federal government has been dragging its heels on this crucial climate policy for years, primarily at the behest of oil and gas industry players and politicians like Premier Smith. A draft framework for the cap was released in December 2023, and the government published draft regulations in December 2024, but since then virtually no progress has been made.
Premier Smith also frequently refers to the proposed cap on greenhouse gas pollution as a “production cap” – an important distinction as the province is responsible for governing production, while the federal government has jurisdiction over Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Though industry may claim that Canadian oil production will be negatively affected by a cap, it is a global shift to cleaner energy sources that is most likely to result in production being scaled back in the future.
The fact is that the oil and gas sector remains Canada’s largest source of climate-changing emissions, and it’s the reason we continually fail to meet our climate targets while other sectors and everyday Canadians are reducing their emissions. The emissions cap may not be in force yet, but it’s absolutely needed to ensure the oil and gas industry does its part to meet our international commitments to address climate change.
Climate reality
The science is clear: burning oil and gas directly leads to the greenhouse gas pollution that’s warming our planet and causing wildfires and floods here in Canada. The Alberta government has been equally clear that the goal of this potential pipeline is to expand oil production – at a time when we need to be moving in the opposite direction.
The fact that the only two mentions of “climate” in Premier Smith’s announcement referred to the investment climate speaks volumes about the Province’s priorities. This sidelining of climate has become routine in Canada’s version of “nation-building,” as federal leaders increasingly align themselves with Alberta’s narrative that equates fossil fuel expansion with national strength, while treating the planetary crisis it fuels as an afterthought.
Premier Smith has opined that Canada’s oil reserves in Alberta represent “wealth [that] cannot be kept in the ground,” going so far as to suggest that Canada has a moral obligation to extract and export our heavy, crude oil to the world. In fact, every dollar a pipeline might generate is dwarfed by the billions we’re already spending on climate disasters each year.
In 2024 alone, insured losses from extreme weather events reached an estimated $9.2 billion. Expanding the tar sands isn’t a path to Canadian prosperity, it’s a recipe for endless bills, broken communities and an accelerating climate crisis. What good is economic growth if our towns are being washed away or going up in smoke? “Growth fueled by fossil fuels is futile,” economist Nicholas Stern warns, “because the damage it causes ends in self-destruction.”
Smith also called on Prime Minister Mark Carney to help make Canada an “energy superpower” and leader in the G7. But as economist Jim Standford points out, the very purpose of new pipelines is to expand oil production, which is fundamentally at odds with Canada’s climate commitments. The only thing this pipeline would make Canada a leader in is ramping up our emissions at a time when other G7 nations are slamming on the brakes.
Becoming an energy superpower via fossil fuel expansion violates international and human rights law, and could also expose Canada to greater risk of climate litigation from other countries, according to the landmark advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in July. The opinion confirmed that ambitious climate action, including rejecting new fossil fuel infrastructure, is not just a moral imperative, but a legal obligation. According to the Court, countries have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment, including the climate system, and must act with due diligence to avoid that harm.
Indigenous rights reality
Alberta Minister of Indigenous Relations Rajan Sawhney said in the press conference, “We’ve learned from past mistakes, and we want BC First Nations to know that we’ve heard you loud and clear.”
If they were truly listening, they would have heard the unequivocal message from Coastal First Nations that there is no support for a pipeline and oil tankers project in their coastal waters. The Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) was equally clear about its opposition to new pipeline proposals on the north BC coast: “To even entertain this idea shows a profound disrespect for both First Nations law and the will of the people who live there, as well as a total disregard for the climate emergency,” stated UBCIC President Grand Chief Stewart Phillip.
Alberta’s proposal disregards the fact that more than 100 First Nations have signed the Save the Fraser Declaration, banning a northwest coast pipeline from crossing the Fraser River Watershed and ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon. In addition, the Coastal First Nations Declaration signed in 2010 bans crude oil tankers from their territories on the north Pacific Coast.
As Gitxaała Chief Councillor Linda Innes has stated: “As a Nation, Gitxaała has been steadfast and clear that the risk of a pipeline or tanker on our lands, waters, community, and way of life is too great and that no amount of pressure from any government or private company can undermine Gitxaała’s duty to protect our territory for our future generations.”
It’s important to remember that both the Northern Gateway and Trans Mountain pipeline and tankers projects had federal approvals overturned at least once following lengthy legal battles over inadequate consultation with Indigenous peoples. While the Alberta government asserts that it is taking a different approach this time, promising more transparency and early engagement with First Nations, the very idea of fast-tracking a risky project of this scale is out of step with the federal government’s legal obligations to First Nations, including obtaining the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous nations along the route.
Public and social licence reality
When it comes to getting major projects built, experience has shown that shutting out the public results in increased delays and costs, as well as legal challenges.
Premier Smith says she has confidence that if the government can “fix the investment climate” and get rid of the “nine bad laws,” the project will attract private sector investment and be able to move ahead. This ignores the reality that no matter what the review and approval process looks like, this type of project will inevitably face significant and sustained public opposition – just like the Northern Gateway project did over a decade ago.
Between 2012 and 2013, the National Energy Board held public hearings on Northern Gateway and heard from more than 1,400 northwestern BC residents who registered to express their views on the risky project, with only two registered participants voicing their support. In 2014, Kitimat residents voted to oppose Northern Gateway in a plebiscite, and several municipalities, unions and businesses opposed Enbridge’s proposal to defend the cultural, economic and ecological integrity of the region.
This precedent is not a historical footnote – it's a warning. Any renewed attempt to drive a crude oil pipeline through this region will be met with the same wall of resistance.