Protests against the Northern Gateway pipeline in British Columbia marked a significant moment in Canada’s energy debate back in 2012, drawing thousands of demonstrators. The pipeline would have connected Alberta tar sands crude oil to the Pacific coast, making them susceptible to dangerous oil spills. This project – known as the Atlantic Coast Pipeline – ignited a brutal culture war between environmentalism and economic development. The project was eventually abandoned in 2016 after courts ruled that Indigenous communities had not been sufficiently consulted.
The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline came in with a jaw-dropping price of C$35 billion. It was a major pillar of Alberta’s plan to diversify its energy markets. British Columbia Premier David Eby not only opposed the plan, he has strongly closed the door on building any sort of pipeline across his province. This hard line attitude elicited the thunderous response from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who decried Eby’s stand as “un-Canadian.”
Changes may be on the way, thanks to a new proposal from Premier Smith’s conservative government. This plan would move oil from the Alberta oil sands all the way to British Columbia’s northern Pacific coast. This new initiative is a welcome step towards reaching Asian markets and diversifying Canada’s energy export destinations. Currently, almost all of Canada’s energy exports, including crude oil, are sold to the United States, which has raised concerns amid ongoing trade tensions and tariffs instituted during Donald Trump’s presidency.
British Columbia has deep roots in Canada’s environmental movement – it’s the home of Greenpeace, after all. The province’s residents have repeatedly voiced their concerns regarding fossil fuel projects, especially given Canada’s commitment to halving its greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. This commitment was made after the state has already felt the severe impacts of climate change—such as record-breaking wildfire seasons.
The only oil pipeline that runs the other direction—Alberta to British Columbia—is the contentious TransMountain (TMX) pipeline. The feds finally stepped in in 2018. They bought the project at a C$4.5 billion loss to avoid a stalled project. As the next round of proposals are introduced, one thing is clear—public sentiment is the name of the game. In an October national poll by the Angus Reid Institute, 59% of Canadians supported building yet another Alberta-BC pipeline. Even more impressively, 56% of British Columbians were for it as well.
Despite this support, opposition remains fierce. Indigenous leaders such as Chief Na’Moks of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation have made clear their fierce opposition to any new pipelines.
“Our communities will not be collateral for private profit.” – Chief Na’Moks of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation
He further criticized the framing of economic development in this context:
“This is colonial violence masked as ‘economic development’, and the world is watching.” – Chief Na’Moks of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation
Environmental Defence Canada’s Keith Brooks underscored that any movement towards a new pipeline would likely encounter significant backlash from environmental activists and Indigenous groups alike.
Eby’s dismissal of the project speaks to a larger and perhaps more profound undercurrent in Canadian politics today – one that pits energy policy against environmental stewardship.
“There is no route, there is no proponent, there is no project,” Eby stated emphatically.
This historic and current conflict raises troubling questions. How can Canada use its energy needs to move forward with environmental sustainability and protection of Indigenous Rights?
As energy economist Andrew Leach noted, “there are real merits to a case.” Each side, he asserted, has powerful lines of argument to justify their favored winners.