Environmental organizations say Canada’s proposed pipeline to the British Columbia coast still falls short on one key issue: a clear commitment to reducing emissions.
Although the project has the backing of both the federal and Alberta governments, groups including the Pembina Institute and Clean Prosperity believe the proposal should go further by securing the long-delayed Pathways carbon capture and storage project.
Chris Severson-Baker, executive director of the Pembina Institute, said he is increasingly skeptical that the Pathways project will deliver the emissions reductions it has promised.
He argued that the federal government has continued to place confidence in the project without requiring firm commitments from the companies behind it. In his view, attaching clear conditions to the pipeline agreement would show whether industry is truly prepared to move the carbon capture project forward.
The pipeline proposal is based on an agreement signed last year between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, which made progress on carbon capture a condition for advancing the project.
Last week, the two leaders announced they were close to reaching a final agreement with the Oil Sands Alliance to build the Pathways project. According to the federal government, once fully operational, the facility could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 16 million tonnes each year.
Despite that announcement, Severson-Baker questioned whether the project will ever reach that stage. He also noted that a second pipeline running alongside the existing Trans Mountain route would only be economically viable if oil production increases significantly.
The project is expected to cost between $35.2 billion and $43.7 billion. It will be developed through a partnership involving the Alberta government, the federally owned Trans Mountain Corporation and Calgary-based Pembina Pipeline, which currently holds a 10% stake.
Severson-Baker also warned that taxpayers are assuming a significant financial risk. He said it is telling that, despite efforts by both governments to remove barriers to the project, no private company has stepped forward to fully finance or lead the development.
He added that Canadians will also be looking for a clear strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that climate action remains just as important as expanding energy infrastructure.
Michael Bernstein, CEO of Clean Prosperity, described the climate commitments included in the pipeline announcement as encouraging but relatively modest.
According to Bernstein, if governments are prepared to revise their original agreement to take a direct ownership role in the pipeline, they should also strengthen its climate provisions and reinforce the project’s decarbonization objectives.
Despite their concerns over the pipeline, both environmental organizations welcomed the separate agreement reached between Prime Minister Carney and British Columbia Premier David Eby.
That agreement includes investments to expand clean electricity generation across British Columbia, as well as funding for mining, forestry and other major infrastructure projects.
Bernstein believes the agreement could also help improve Canada’s carbon market by encouraging closer cooperation between British Columbia and the federal government on climate policy.
Premier Eby remains opposed to the proposed pipeline but has confirmed that his government will not challenge the project in court. His approach marks a change from the previous B.C. government under former premier John Horgan, which unsuccessfully fought the Trans Mountain expansion through the courts while Eby served as attorney general.
Duane Bratt, a political science professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, believes the two agreements reflect Prime Minister Carney’s effort to secure support from both Alberta and British Columbia for a broader nation-building agenda.
As part of the deal, Carney also committed to maintaining the federal ban on oil tankers along British Columbia’s northern coast. The measure has long been criticized by Alberta and Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre but remains a priority for the B.C. government and Coastal First Nations.
The agreement with British Columbia also includes additional federal funding for transportation tunnels and other infrastructure projects, which Bratt believes helped make the broader package more acceptable to the province.
The pipeline debate comes as Alberta prepares for an October vote on whether to hold a future referendum on separation from Canada. Bratt said the project is unlikely to change the minds of committed separatists but could resonate with Albertans who remain dissatisfied with federal energy policies introduced during the Justin Trudeau era.
He also noted that the project’s public-private ownership structure reflects the growing difficulty of building large infrastructure projects in Canada, where regulatory uncertainty and political opposition have made private investors increasingly cautious.
Bernstein agreed that another pipeline to Canada’s West Coast could provide economic benefits, but said he would have preferred to see greater private-sector participation rather than relying so heavily on public investment.
He added that if global demand for oil remains strong, Canada should use the economic gains generated by increased production to accelerate investments in decarbonization and continue advancing its long-term climate objectives.
