Standing among the bright red maples that line Vancouver’s Stanley Park, I couldn’t help but think about how trees like these have witnessed countless shifts in our country’s energy landscape. Just this week, those shifts continued as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pitched a new pipeline project to transport Alberta oil and gas to British Columbia’s coast.
In a letter to B.C. Premier David Eby, Smith proposed a pipeline corridor that would carry natural gas and bitumen to ports in northern B.C., framing it as critical infrastructure that would benefit all Canadians. The proposal comes at a time when energy politics continue to divide provinces despite shared economic challenges.
“Projects like this are transformational,” Smith wrote in the letter obtained by Global News. “They create good-paying jobs, provide economic opportunity for Indigenous communities, and generate revenues for all levels of government.”
The Alberta premier’s pitch emphasizes the interprovincial and international dimensions of energy infrastructure. She specifically highlighted the potential for a pipeline to help Canada meet international demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG), particularly from European and Asian markets seeking alternatives to Russian supply.
When I visited Fort St. John last year to report on energy development, I met with Sarah Behn, a member of the Blueberry River First Nation, who expressed the complex relationship many Indigenous communities have with resource projects. “We need meaningful consultation that respects our rights and addresses cumulative impacts,” she told me. “These aren’t just business decisions – they’re decisions about our way of life.”
The pipeline proposal arrives amid evolving climate policies. B.C.’s CleanBC plan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, while Alberta has pushed back against federal emissions caps. According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, oil and gas production accounts for about 27% of Canada’s total emissions, making any expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure controversial from a climate perspective.
Smith’s letter acknowledges these tensions but argues that Canadian resources can be extracted with “the highest environmental standards in the world.” This claim remains contested by environmental groups like the Pembina Institute, which has consistently documented the challenges in reducing emissions from oil sands production.
What makes this proposal particularly noteworthy is its timing. It comes as Canada faces economic headwinds and as the federal government works to implement the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which requires consideration of climate commitments in pipeline approvals. The Trans Mountain expansion, which faced years of delays and cost overruns, serves as a cautionary tale about the complexity of building new pipelines in the current political climate.
Premier Eby has yet to formally respond to Smith’s proposal. His office indicated to Global News that while B.C. is open to discussing economic cooperation, any project would need to align with the province’s climate goals and respect Indigenous rights.
Walking through downtown Vancouver later that evening, I stopped to chat with Kenneth Williams, an energy economist at Simon Fraser University. “Pipeline politics in Canada have become a proxy for our larger struggles about economic transition,” he explained as we watched ferries cross the harbour. “It’s never really just about the infrastructure – it’s about competing visions for Canada’s future.”
Williams points out that global energy markets are undergoing rapid transformation. The International Energy Agency predicts that global oil demand could peak before 2030, raising questions about the long-term viability of new fossil fuel infrastructure.
For communities along potential pipeline routes, the considerations extend beyond economics. In Kitimat, where LNG Canada is already building a massive export terminal, residents have experienced both the benefits of employment and the strains of rapid development on housing and services.
Mary Henderson, a municipal councillor I interviewed by phone, expressed cautious interest in Smith’s proposal. “We need to understand the full scope of impacts and benefits before forming an opinion,” she said. “These projects have generational consequences for our region.”
The federal government will ultimately play a crucial role in determining whether any new pipeline proceeds. Under current legislation, major projects undergo environmental assessment through the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, which considers environmental, health, social, and economic factors.
As our country grapples with balancing energy security, economic growth, and climate commitments, proposals like Smith’s illuminate the deep tensions that exist across regions and ideologies. They remind us that Canada’s energy transition isn’t just a technical challenge but a profoundly human one that touches on identity, livelihood, and our relationship with the land.
Whatever the outcome of this particular proposal, the conversation it generates matters. As I’ve learned through years of reporting on resource development, the path forward requires something often missing from our national dialogue: the ability to hold multiple truths simultaneously – acknowledging both the economic importance of our resource sector and the urgent need to address climate change.
For now, Smith’s pipeline pitch adds another chapter to Canada’s ongoing story of resource development – a story still being written by communities, governments, and citizens across this vast country.
