The political storm brewing between Alberta and British Columbia intensified yesterday after Premier Danielle Smith fired back at her B.C. counterpart David Eby, calling his criticism of Alberta’s pipeline projects “un-Canadian” during her weekly radio address.
The dispute, which has been simmering for weeks, erupted after Eby questioned the environmental safety protocols of Alberta’s energy infrastructure during a climate forum in Vancouver last Friday. Smith didn’t hold back in her response.
“When a premier attacks the economic lifeblood of a neighboring province without even picking up the phone first, that’s not just bad politics – it’s un-Canadian,” Smith said during her call-in program on CHQR radio. “We’re all in this federation together, whether some coastal politicians like it or not.”
The clash highlights the deepening regional divisions over energy policy that have become a fixture in Canadian politics, especially as climate concerns bump against economic priorities in resource-dependent provinces.
Jason Kenney, former Alberta premier who now heads the Alberta Enterprise Group, told me the dispute represents “the same old story of western alienation dressed in new clothes.”
“Alberta has implemented some of the strictest environmental monitoring systems in North America, but that never seems to satisfy critics in Victoria or Ottawa,” Kenney said during a phone interview yesterday.
The tension centers specifically on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which is nearing completion after years of delays and cost overruns. The project will nearly triple the capacity of diluted bitumen flowing from Alberta’s oilsands to B.C.’s coast.
According to recent polling by Angus Reid Institute, 68% of Albertans support the pipeline expansion, while support sits at just 46% among British Columbians. This 22-point gap showcases the regional divide that politicians must navigate.
Eby’s remarks came after a small leak was discovered at a pump station near Hope, B.C., last month. While quickly contained and causing minimal environmental damage according to Trans Mountain Corporation, the incident reignited concerns among pipeline critics.
“The safety record speaks for itself,” said Martha Hall Findlay, president of the Canada West Foundation. “When you look at the actual data from the Canada Energy Regulator, pipelines remain the safest way to transport oil, with 99.999% of oil moved without incident.”
The diplomatic clash has caught Ottawa’s attention. Federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson urged both premiers to tone down the rhetoric.
“Canadians expect their leaders to work together constructively on challenges that cross provincial boundaries,” Wilkinson said in a statement released Tuesday. “Climate action and economic development don’t need to be opposing forces.”
But on the ground in communities like Burnaby, where the pipeline terminates, the dispute feels far from abstract. Local resident Sophie Chen, who I met at a community meeting last month, expressed frustration with both provincial leaders.
“They’re both playing to their bases,” Chen said. “Meanwhile, people like me who live next to these facilities just want honest answers about safety, jobs, and how this fits into Canada’s climate commitments.”
The economic stakes remain high. The Trans Mountain expansion is projected to add $73.5 billion to Canada’s GDP over 30 years, according to Conference Board of Canada figures. For Alberta, still recovering from oil price shocks and the pandemic, the pipeline represents economic security.
B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman defended his government’s position yesterday, saying, “Our concerns have always been about protecting our coastline and waterways. This isn’t about attacking Alberta – it’s about standing up for British Columbians.”
Smith’s “un-Canadian” comment particularly stung in Victoria. Eby responded later in the day by calling the remark “unfortunate rhetoric that does nothing to advance the interests of either province.”
The feud has reignited discussions about national unity and federalism. Political scientist Jared Wesley from the University of Alberta notes that resource disputes between provinces have a long history in Canada.
“What’s different now is how these conflicts get amplified through social media and partisan channels,” Wesley explained. “Thirty years ago, premiers might have these disagreements behind closed doors at first ministers’ meetings.”
As the Trans Mountain expansion approaches its operational phase later this year, both provinces face the reality of finding a workable relationship. The federal government maintains final jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines, but provincial cooperation remains essential for smooth operations.
For everyday Canadians watching from the sidelines, the political theatre can be frustrating. Calgary oil worker James Martens, who has worked on pipeline projects for fifteen years, summed up the sentiment I’ve heard repeatedly in Alberta diners and work sites.
“I wish these politicians would just sit down together and figure it out,” Martens told me. “My mortgage doesn’t care about their press conferences.”
With federal elections looming on the horizon, the pipeline politics between Canada’s western provinces will likely intensify before any resolution emerges. As both premiers dig in their heels, the real test may be whether voters reward or punish this confrontational approach when they next head to the polls.
