Tag: danielle-smith

Energy minister travels to B.C. to meet with Eby

This article was written by Stephanie Levitz and Laura Stone, and was published in the Globe & Mail on November 29, 2025.

Premier says pipeline to the province’s northwest coast is never going to happen

Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson travelled to British Columbia Friday for a meeting with Premier David Eby, who continued to express frustration over his province’s exclusion from negotiations for the landmark deal Ottawa signed with Alberta.

The political fallout from the memorandum of understanding signed Thursday also continued internally for Liberals after the sudden resignation from cabinet of long-time environmentalist Steven Guilbeault.

Mr. Guilbeault, in charge of the heritage portfolio, told Prime Minister Mark Carney he was leaving the job hours after the MOU was unveiled, and sent a letter sharply criticizing the new memorandum of understanding with Alberta.

Among other things, it removes the oil and gas emissions cap, suspends clean electricity regulations, and lays out a framework to get a new pipeline built from Alberta to B.C.’s northwest coast. For that, the government would provide an exemption to the oil tanker ban to allow the bitumen to ship to Asian markets.

In exchange, Alberta will strengthen its industrial carbon pricing system and both levels of government will forge ahead with a major carbon capture and storage project to reduce emissions.

B.C. was not at the table for discussions on the MOU, prompting anger from the Eby government.

The agreement itself says there would be trilateral discussions on the pipeline, as well as consultation with First Nations and the pipeline would have Indigenous co-ownership.

But Mr. Eby said Friday the pipeline is never going to happen, citing the lack of a proponent and the objections of Coastal First Nations.

So, he said, the message he was going to deliver to Mr. Hodgson is simple: The pipeline proposal can’t be allowed to take federal attention away from shovel-ready projects in B.C. that already have provincial buy-in, First Nations support and a financial plan.

“The federal government needs to be extremely careful to make sure that their efforts with Alberta don’t put those projects at significant risk,” he told reporters at an unrelated announcement in Surrey, B.C., on Friday.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called the agreement a “clear win.”

“There’s no doubt David Eby is not a fan of it, as you probably heard,” she told party members at their Edmonton convention.

“But I think it’s not his decision, it’s the federal government’s decision.”

Mr. Hodgson apologized late Friday for comments he made in a CBC interview. When asked on Thursday about ensuring the Coastal First Nations, who oppose a pipeline, could attend a meeting about the issue, he replied: “It’s called Zoom.”

In a Friday post on X, he said it was a poor choice of words and he reached out to apologize to the First Nations, whom he looks forward to meeting in person.

B.C. Liberal MP Wade Grant, who is a member of Musqueam Nation, said his province’s priorities must be central to the discussion. “I remain concerned about any potential impacts to our coastal and inland environments, and I will continue to advocate for the strongest safeguards possible,” he wrote in a statement on social media.

Cabinet ministers were asked Friday whether Mr. Guilbeault’s decision to quit cabinet – he is staying in caucus – will send a negative signal about the party’s commitment to combatting climate change.

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said the MOU showed climate is still a priority.

“I think what you saw yesterday was kind of a road map where you have a number of conditions to make sure that Canada can be a responsible and sustainable energy producer,” he told reporters at an event in Halifax.

When asked whether he was concerned anyone else might resign, he said: “No, I’m not.”

Toronto MP Rob Oliphant, parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs, said Mr. Guilbeault was a valued member of the party, and both he and the government had tough choices to make. “We have to change the narrative that Alberta doesn’t belong in the country,” he said in an interview.

“Does it mean that we give up on our environmental agenda? Never. This is an existential crisis.”

Kevin Bosch, a lobbyist and former senior Liberal staffer who hails from Alberta, said he believes Liberals are unified behind Mr. Carney.

“I think they’re grateful for the work that Steven Guilbeault did but understand that this new prime minister is going in a different direction,” he said.

Mr. Guilbeault’s departure opens up room for a cabinet shuffle, and Mr. Bosch said while it is possible the gap is filled temporarily, he believes there will be a larger shuffle before Christmas.

He noted that House Leader Steven MacKinnon has also taken on transport and Dominic LeBlanc holds several portfolios, including internal trade.

“Carney is known as a prime minister who rewards those who can deliver, and so he may do some shuffling based on who’s impressed him,” he added.

“We know Carney is the consummate manager, and so those who perform are rewarded and those who are not might get shuffled out. That’s the way it is.”

Agreement on pipeline weeks away: Smith

This article was written by Emma Graney and was published in the Globe & Mail on November 22, 2025.

Concrete plan doesn’t yet exist, but idea has drawn opposition from B.C.’s Premier

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is pushing back against British Columbia’s opposition to the prospect of an oil pipeline to the coast, saying that being part of “Team Canada” means co-operating on getting her province’s oil to market.

The Alberta and federal governments have been working to strike an energy accord, long sought by Ms. Smith to boost her province’s oil and natural-gas sector.

Part of that agreement may involve a new pipeline from Alberta to the north coast of B.C., The Globe and Mail first reported on Wednesday, which would also require an exemption to the federal government’s ban on oil-tanker traffic.

“If we’re going to get a deal, it will be in a matter of weeks,” Ms. Smith told reporters in Calgary Friday.

A concrete plan for such a pipeline does not yet exist; there is no route and no proponent. Yet the idea has drawn unequivocal opposition from B.C. Premier David Eby.

After Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe said he was also involved in the AlbertacOttawa discussions, Mr. Eby said Thursday that Mr. Moe and Ms. Smith were jeopardizing major economic development by engaging in what he called “secret” talks on oil pipelines through his province.

While Ottawa has not publicly weighed in on the bubbling tensions between the provinces, Ms. Smith shot back Friday that there should be a Team Canada approach on pipelines.

“This is what Team Canada looks like: That when you’ve got provinces that don’t have access to a shoreline, we co-operate to make sure that we can get our product to market,” she said.

“A lot of people wrap themselves in the flag, talking about how much they support Canada and want to work together. And then, when it comes right down to it, not everybody lives up to that commitment.”

As for discontent from B.C. on the pipeline issue, Ms. Smith said “the ball is in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s court” to calm tensions.

“We all saw that there was also a lot of sabre-rattling in previous iterations of the British Columbia government. And in the end, the decision is the federal government’s to make based on their assessment of what’s in the national interest,” she said.

The Prime Minister’s Office said it had no comment on Ms. Smith’s remarks, nor the concerns being raised by B.C. that it is being left out of talks about a pipeline or partial lift of the tanker ban.

A source familiar with those discussions, however, said Mr. Moe is not involved in the Alberta-Ottawa negotiations. The Globe is not naming the source, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the status of the talks.

Earlier in the week, Mr. Moe said he was “at least part of that discussion over the last while” with the federal government and Alberta.

Both Alberta and Saskatchewan want to significantly boost oil production, and the pipeline sector sees that potential growth as a huge opportunity.

Enbridge Inc. recently announced that it will spend US$1.4-billion on pipeline networks to boost oil flows to U.S. refiners. And at South Bow Corp.’s first investor day on Wednesday, chief executive Bevin Wirzba said the company expects Western Canadian production to grow by one million barrels a day over the next 10 years.

Asked under what conditions South Bow would consider investing in a new oil pipeline to the West Coast, Mr. Wirzba said, “it really starts first with customers feeling confident that they actually have the barrels to commit to a project of that scope and scale.”

Such a project would also need strong alignment between governments, regulators and Indigenous communities, he said. “It’s not for the faint of heart.”

The B.C. government said this week that it is backing a proposal to increase the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline system by roughly 40 per cent, with results as early as 2026.

That’s a sharp reversal from a government that once fiercely opposed the initial Trans Mountain expansion, arguing when it was proposed that increased shipping traffic would put B.C.’s marine environment at risk.

The turnaround is part of B.C.’s effort to counter pressure from Alberta for an entirely new pipeline, but Ms. Smith said Friday that boosting capacity on the Trans Mountain system “is the beginning – not the end of it.”

“I want to see pipelines in all directions: north, east, south, west,” she said.

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne declined to answer questions about why British Columbia has not been a party to federal-provincial talks about oil pipelines.

Asked repeatedly about the matter Friday, he said Ottawa has a “good relationship” with those provinces and intends to ensure that all the voices are listened to.

“I can’t speak really to the discussion that Premier Eby may have had or not. But what I can say is that people see Canada as an energy superpower, both in conventional and renewable energy,” Mr. Champagne told The Globe at an unrelated event in Winnipeg.

“You want the voice of the leaders in the nation, particularly the premiers, to be part of the discussion.”

Does Car­ney want to say yes to Smith?

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith meet in Ottawa last month. Some believe the prime minister wants to say “no” to Smith's request for a new oil pipeline, and that the vehement opposition of Indigenous groups and the B.C. premier are a cover to get there.

This opinion was written by Althia Raj and was published in the Toronto Star on November 20, 2025.

Does Prime Min­is­ter Mark Car­ney want to build a new pipeline to the West Coast, or is he buy­ing time and expect­ing Indi­gen­ous com­munit­ies and the NDP gov­ern­ment in Brit­ish Columbia to oppose it for him?

Ask fed­eral Lib­er­als that ques­tion and you get dif­fer­ent answers. MPs, who were briefed about an upcom­ing memor­andum of under­stand­ing with Alberta Premier Dani­elle Smith at their weekly caucus meet­ing, had many dif­fer­ent things to say about fed­eral bless­ing for a pipeline pro­posal going to B.C.’s north­west­ern coast. Some believe Car­ney wants to get to a “yes.” Oth­ers believe the prime min­is­ter wants to say “no,” and that the vehe­ment oppos­i­tion of Indi­gen­ous groups and B.C. Premier David Eby are a cover to get there. Then there are oth­ers who aren’t sure what to believe.

Last month, Smith announced she was com­mit­ting $14 mil­lion to fund the ini­tial plan­ning stages of a pro­posed bitu­men pipeline to B.C.’s north­w­est coast, fol­low­ing a route sim­ilar to the failed North­ern Gate­way project. She said she hoped to see this pipeline project — what she’s often referred to as a “grand bar­gain” with the prime min­is­ter — on the second tranche of nation build­ing projects referred to the Major Projects Office before the Grey Cup in Novem­ber.

That refer­ral became a memor­andum of under­stand­ing (MOU) between Ott­awa and Alberta that was not announced last week because of budget vote con­sid­er­a­tion, but that the Star has learned is expec­ted to be made pub­lic later this month.

In ques­tion period Wed­nes­day, Energy and Nat­ural Resources Min­is­ter Tim Hodg­son told MPs that the prime min­is­ter and Alberta premier are hav­ing “pro­duct­ive dis­cus­sions” on the MOU for a new pipeline.

Behind closed doors, Hodg­son repeated that same mes­sage to MPs: Alberta needed to fix its indus­trial car­bon pri­cing sys­tem, the pro­posed Path­ways car­bon cap­ture project needed to be built, and Indi­gen­ous com­munit­ies and affected provinces needed to give their con­sent.

Those at Hodg­son’s brief­ing believed that each of those con­di­tions has to be sat­is­fied before the fed­eral gov­ern­ment gives the green light.

The prime min­is­ter “has been very clear,” B.C. MP Gur­bux Saini told report­ers. “Til those con­di­tions are met, there will not be a pipeline.”

Those con­di­tions are a heavy lift. The Pem­bina Insti­tute told the Star that the indus­trial car­bon pri­cing regime would need to be sig­ni­fic­antly strengthened in order to drive needed invest­ments in emis­sions reduc­tions.

Car­bon cred­its would likely need to trade around $150 a tonne rather than the cur­rent $25 a tonne for big car­bon cap­ture projects, like the Path­ways Alli­ance project to make sense. If the incent­ives exis­ted and Path­ways was approved quickly, it would still be at least five years before it was oper­a­tional, said Pem­bina’s Janetta McK­en­zie.

Then, of course, there is the lack of Indi­gen­ous sup­port. Mar­ilyn Slett, pres­id­ent of the Coastal First Nations, said the group was “incred­ibly alarmed” by the “alleged nego­ti­ations” between the fed­eral gov­ern­ment and Alberta. “We have been very clear that we do not sup­port this pro­posed project,” she said.

Slett said the group, along with Brit­ish Columbia, is call­ing on the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to uphold the tanker ban off the north coast and that “any dis­cus­sions around an exemp­tion to the cur­rent ban on oil tankers trig­gers the hon­our of the Crown and requires our con­sent.”

Those com­ments were reflec­ted by Lib­eral MPs, namely those in Brit­ish Columbia, where the Lib­er­als hold 20 seats, and where a pipeline or lift­ing the tanker ban is not pop­u­lar.

“The people in my com­munity are proud of the coast, proud of our coastal eco­nomy and com­mit­ted to pro­tect­ing it … and that’s what the people in the com­munity want to see the gov­ern­ment uphold,” said Vic­toria MP Will Greaves.

Even former envir­on­ment min­is­ter and cur­rent Her­it­age Min­is­ter Steven Guil­beault told report­ers Wed­nes­day morn­ing that “for the pipeline to go for­ward, towards the west coast, the prime min­is­ter has said at numer­ous occa­sions … that a pipeline like that should have the con­sent of par­ti­cip­at­ing provinces. So, if we go to the west coast, B.C. — Brit­ish Columbia, must be in agree­ment.”

But in a state­ment to the Star Wed­nes­day, Hodg­son’s office sug­ges­ted that con­sent may not mean con­sent after all.

Hodg­son’s spokes­per­son Car­o­lyn Svonkin told my col­leagues that Ott­awa will not “con­fer a veto” to B.C. over a pipeline. Instead, the Car­ney gov­ern­ment’s “strong pref­er­ence” is for a new pipeline to have B.C.’s sup­port, she said.

That com­ment might give some food for thought to Lib­er­als think­ing Car­ney’s “grand bar­gain” with Smith was really a “no” dis­guised as a “maybe.”

It might just be a road map to “yes.”

Alberta to draw up proposal for new oil pipeline to B.C.

This article was written by Emma Graney, Robert Fife, and Jeffrey Jones, and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 2, 2025. e Globe and Mail (Ontario Edition)

Province plans to send application for federal fast-track review by May, with input from industry

The Alberta government is taking the lead on an application for a major new oil pipeline to the B.C. coast in an attempt to break through several federal policies that Premier Danielle Smith has blamed for scaring away private investors.

The idea is to hammer out a proposal for a one-million-barrel-a-day bitumen pipeline. The proposal would be sent to Ottawa’s new Major Projects Office by May, 2026, the government said on Wednesday.

Alberta does not want to be the financial backer but hopes the project will be deemed in the national interest after a fasttrack review by the federal office, then ultimately built and owned by private-sector and Indigenous interests.

The announcement confirmed an earlier report by The Globe and Mail.

The move is the latest effort by the province to advance the interests of the oil and gas industry. Both the industry and the province have frequently accused the federal government of restricting the sector’s financial prospects with onerous environmental policies and have called for them to be rescinded.

In recent months, the sides seem to have moved closer, as the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney has appeared more receptive to positioning Canada as a conventional and clean-energy superpower amid the trade war with the United States.

One way the federal government has sought to increase trade independence from the U.S. is through Bill C-5, which authorizes it to fast-track certain projects it deems to be in the national interest. An initial list of those projects, which was referred to the Major Projects Office last month, did not include a pipeline.

Alberta hasn’t finalized a route or a cost estimate for the project but is proposing a 42-inch-diameter pipeline, extending to either Prince Rupert or Kitimat, B.C.

It has started engaging with First Nations that could be affected and is also discussing the concept with the B.C. government, which has not been supportive of a new oil pipeline.

Alberta has enlisted Enbridge Inc., South Bow Corp. and Trans Mountain Corp. to provide technical and regulatory expertise, though they are not financially backing the project.

However, they can offer the benefit of their experience with such projects as Northern Gateway and Energy East, which failed to get built after years of regulatory and legal wrangling, and the Trans Mountain expansion, which suffered delays and cost overruns.

The province has also assembled a technical working group made up of government and regulatory officials, industry veterans and Indigenous leaders.

With the initiative, the Alberta Premier aims to get several federal environmental policies reversed, including a ban on tanker traffic along the Northern B.C. coast, and a cap on oil-sector emissions.

“I’ve made this case abundantly clear to the Prime Minister, and what I can tell you is this: I’m more optimistic now than I have ever been, that the concerns of Albertans are finally being heard,” she said at a news conference.

“While we still have details to work out, I do look forward to reaching an agreement that will profoundly benefit Alberta and Canada’s economies.”

Peter Tertzakian, deputy director of ARC Energy Research Institute, said the Alberta plan could win public support owing to a growing recognition that developing oil and gas resources can improve national productivity and contribute to GDP. In addition, there is more openness among Indigenous communities to backing energy projects, he said.

“I think it has considerable chance of going further. The real test will be whether or not investors and foreign capital will come back in,” Mr. Tertzakian said. “That’s really going to be key.”

The government doesn’t want to build a multibillion-dollar pipeline with taxpayer dollars, Ms. Smith said, adding that doing so would represent a failed exercise. Alberta will, however, contribute $14-million to support early planning, including developing cost estimates, engagement and devising a credible proposal for Ottawa to consider.

The province may also provide loan guarantees to prospective Indigenous equity owners, she said.

Federal Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson said the Major Projects Office will examine the plan.

If Alberta wishes to be the initial proponent and funder of a pipeline to the West Coast and put it forward to the MPO, that is within their right to do so. We have an active and constructive dialogue with Alberta and will always look for ways to advance shared priorities.

TIM HODGSON, FEDERAL ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES MINISTER

“If Alberta wishes to be the initial proponent and funder of a pipeline to the West Coast and put it forward to the MPO, that is within their right to do so. We have an active and constructive dialogue with Alberta and will always look for ways to advance shared priorities,” Mr. Hodgson said.

He noted that Ottawa expects any pipeline project to move forward in conjunction with capturing and storing carbon-dioxide emissions.

B.C. Premier David Eby has been reluctant to directly oppose Alberta’s pipeline ambitions but said Wednesday that his government would fight to keep the existing ban on large oil tankers in northern coastal waters.

Lifting the ban to enable a new pipeline would create a backlash that could undermine B.C.’s expansion of liquefied natural gas, which is now shipping from the North Coast, he said.

“It’s not just a threat to our pristine coast that so many British Columbians, including myself, value, but it is a direct economic threat to the kind of economy that we’re trying to build in the country here,” he told reporters.

Even with an application backed by the Alberta government, Mr. Eby said there is no viable pipeline project to oppose yet.

Ms. Smith said she’s aware that she has work to do in reaching agreement with her B.C. counterpart. The two jurisdictions are already co-operating on a number of initiatives, she added, including LNG expansion and intertie connections to support each other’s electricity grids.

“I like to build with other premiers on areas in which we agree,” she said. “We don’t always agree on everything all the time but I think we’ve got a lot of common ground to start from. And I think as we continue on and build the relationships, that we’ll be able to, I hope, win him over.”

Some Indigenous groups are supporting the process, including the National Coalition of Chiefs. Its president, Dale Swampy, said the group is “especially happy that they have decided to engage with Indigenous nations in B.C. and Alberta right from the very beginning of the process.”

However, Coastal First Nations, whose members are long-time pipeline opponents, rejected the plan.

“As the rights and title holders of B.C.’s North and Central Coast and Haida Gwaii, we must inform Premier Smith once again that there is no support from Coastal First Nations for a pipeline and oil tankers project in our coastal waters,” Marilyn Slett, elected chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council and president of the Coastal First Nations, said in a statement.

Ontario and Alberta premiers team up in pipeline push, urge Ottawa to remove red tape

This article was written by Emma Graney and was published in the Globe & Mail on July 8, 2025.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, left, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford cook pancakes at a Stampede breakfast in Calgary on Monday. The premiers have taken different approaches to the trade war.

Premiers Ford and Smith sign two memorandums of understanding, demanding Ottawa remove policies they say harm industry

Ontario and Alberta intend to work together to build new oil pipelines, rail lines and other trade infrastructure between the two provinces, and their premiers are demanding Ottawa remove a ream of policies that they say have harmed industry.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Ontario Premier Doug Ford signed two memorandums of understanding on Monday after a morning of flipping pancakes at a Calgary Stampede breakfast event. They told reporters U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade war, as well as continuing global economic uncertainty, mean it’s critical for the two provinces to work together.

Under the non-binding MOUs, the rail lines – built using Ontario steel – would connect Ontario’s Ring of Fire region, critical-mineral mining projects and processing facilities to Western Canadian ports.

The agreements also aim to double down on energy security for Ontario, with pipelines that would connect new and existing refineries there to Alberta oil and gas, and expand export opportunities. But the MOUs contain no details about how or by whom these projects would be built.

Ms. Smith said she has always felt that a pipeline to Ontario “just makes sense from an energy security point of view,” and believes Ontarians would support such a plan.

“The world changed in November, and I think Canadians understand that we’ve got to start acting like a country. We’ve got to start supporting each other,” she said, referring to Mr. Trump’s reelection last fall.

The moves would ease Canada’s reliance on the U.S. as a trade partner and help alleviate problems being caused by the President, Mr. Ford said.

“The days of relying on the United States 100 per cent, they’re gone,” he said, adding that Canada needs to be self-reliant by boosting co-operation between provinces.

The agreements between Alberta and Ontario are the latest of many attempts, by both federal and provincial governments, to increase interprovincial commerce and collaboration since Mr. Trump took power in January. Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised to eliminate federal barriers to interprovincial trade in part through Bill C-5, and several provinces have inked deals with each other to help remove the hurdles.

Ms. Smith and Mr. Ford have taken markedly different approaches to the trade war. Mr. Ford at one point threatened to cut off electricity exports to the U.S., for example, while Ms. Smith dismissed the idea of tariffs on Canadian energy, calling it a threat to national unity. But the two premiers now seem to be on the same page.

On Monday, Mr. Ford and Ms. Smith also called on the federal government to commit to creating the conditions necessary to strengthen Canada’s economy and competitiveness – including by implementing regulations and policies that would make new oil pipelines a reality.

Mr. Ford said he’s willing to give Mr. Carney the benefit of the doubt – for now.

“I have all the confidence that he’s going to listen to the premiers and straighten out the federal government once and for all, and get rid of the red tape and regulations,” Mr. Ford said.

But, he added, “there’ll be a moment where the rubber hits the road. You can only talk the talk for so long before you start putting some real action around it.”

Mr. Carney told the Calgary Herald over the weekend that a new oil pipeline to the British Columbia coast is “highly likely” to be included on a list of projects deemed to be of national importance to the Canadian government. These projects would be fast-tracked under Bill C-5.

On Monday, Ms. Smith called that “a very positive sentiment.” But she said there is room for more than one pipeline, given forecasts that predict a massive global growth in oil demand.

“Let’s work with the different options that we have on the table right now. There’s many ports we can go to,” she said, including a new deep-sea port in James Bay, in Northern Ontario, which was cited in the MOUs signed Monday.

Energy security has been a long-standing concern in Ontario, where Enbridge’s aging Line 5 pipeline ships 540,000 barrels per day of crude and refined products from Superior, Wis., to Sarnia, Ont. The pipeline has been at the centre of a dispute between the Calgary-based company and Michigan for years.

A 6.4-kilometre section of it runs underwater through the Straits of Mackinac, which connect Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. In 2020, citing the risk of oil leaks, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced that she would revoke an easement granted in 1953 that allows the pipeline to cross the straits. This led to a court battle that has yet to be resolved.

“Do you know the disaster that would create in Ontario? We basically shut down Pearson International Airport, the largest airport in the country, and prices would go through the roof,” Mr. Ford said.

Ontario and Alberta also plan to launch a joint feasibility study to help determine the optimal route and end points for new economic and energy corridors, what financing or commercial tools may be necessary and how to best leverage homegrown supply chains to build these projects, including by using Ontario steel.

While Mr. Ford has faced opposition to fast-tracking mining projects in the province, particularly from First Nations, he said any of the potential projects in the MOU would include Indigenous consultation.

Ford accused of `racist’ com­ments about First Nations

Premier’s ref­er­ence to `hat in hand’ comes a day before meet­ing with chiefs

This article was written by Robert Benzie and was published in the Toronto Star on June 19, 2025.

Premier Doug Ford is being accused of mak­ing “deeply offens­ive and racist” remarks about First Nations on the eve of a key meet­ing with Indi­gen­ous chiefs.

Amid con­tro­versy about fasttracked min­ing projects, Ford is sit­ting down with dozens of Anish­in­abek Nation chiefs Thursday at Queen’s Park to address their con­cerns over Bill 5.

But on Wed­nes­day in St. Cath­ar­ines, his off­the­cuff com­ments about how the law would help improve eco­nomic oppor­tun­it­ies for remote First Nations com­munit­ies sparked a firestorm.

“There’s an oppor­tun­ity of a life­time for them. We’re giv­ing them $3 bil­lion with a B … to be equity part­ners, to make their com­munit­ies more pros­per­ous and wealth­ier and have ser­vices they’ve never had before,” said Ford, adding “there’s going to be a point that you can’t just keep com­ing hat in hand all the time to the gov­ern­ment.

“You’ve got to be able to take care of yourselves — and when you lit­er­ally have gold mines, nickel mines, every type of crit­ical min­eral that the world wants, and you’re say­ing, `No, no, I don’t want to touch that, by the way, give me money.’ Not going to hap­pen. It’s simple.”

NDP MPP Sol Mamakwa (Kii­wet­inoong) said those com­ments “prove that the premier has a fun­da­mental lack of under­stand­ing of Ontario’s treaty rela­tion­ship with First Nations.”

“The premier’s remarks today were deeply offens­ive and racist. He is try­ing to cre­ate divi­sions in our province and is tak­ing us back,” said Mamakwa, whose rid­ing near Ken­ora includes the Ring of Fire min­ing project that Bill 5 is meant to exped­ite.

Although the “Pro­tect Ontario by Unleash­ing Our Eco­nomy Act,” was passed last week, the Pro­gress­ive Con­ser­vat­ives are scram­bling to tackle some of its out­stand­ing prob­lems in the reg­u­la­tion.

Oppon­ents warn the legis­la­tion infringes upon First Nation treaty rights and under­mines pro­tec­tions for the envir­on­ment and endangered spe­cies, because of new “spe­cial eco­nomic zones” designed to rush project approvals.

Grand Chief Alvin Fid­dler of Nish­nawbe Aski Nation, which rep­res­ents 49 First Nations in north­ern Ontario, said Ford’s “remarks are offens­ive, rooted in racism and colo­nial viol­ence.”

Ford’s meet­ing will take place just steps from an Indi­gen­ous encamp­ment protest against his con­ten­tious new law in city­run Queen’s Park behind the legis­lature.

The Anish­in­abek Nation, which rep­res­ents 39 First Nations across Ontario, also opposed the legis­la­tion, not­ing it “under­mines the prin­ciples of law­ful con­sulta­tion, envir­on­mental due pro­cess, Inher­ent Rights, Abori­ginal Title, and Abori­ginal Treaty (pro­tec­ted) Rights — all of which are found­a­tional to a stable and pre­dict­able invest­ment envir­on­ment.”

“While this bill may prom­ise short­term reg­u­lat­ory short­cuts, it will almost cer­tainly res­ult in longterm delays, legal battles, and repu­ta­tional dam­age for com­pan­ies involved,” the group said in a state­ment two weeks ago.

National unity at stake in debate over energy

This opinion was written by David Olive and was published in the Toronto Star on June 18, 2025.

Mark Car­ney will be hes­it­ant to give in to Dani­elle Smith’s demand for a new oil pipeline from Ath­abasca to the B.C. coast.

That demand will pit the prime min­is­ter and the Alberta premier in a test of wills that neither will win.

The only ques­tion is how much dam­age the impasse will do to national unity.

To be sure, Car­ney is more amen­able to new pipelines than his pre­de­cessor.

At his meet­ing with the premi­ers earlier this month, Car­ney said his goal of Canada becom­ing the world’s lead­ing energy super­power could include “an oil pipeline to get to tide­wa­ter.”

But there are no pro­posed crude oil pipelines to the West Coast on the draw­ing boards.

Neither Enbridge Inc. nor TC Energy Inc., both based in Cal­gary, have shown interest in revis­it­ing their earlier pipeline pro­pos­als, which were rejec­ted by gov­ern­ments in Canada and the U.S.

Car­ney needs “shovel ready” projects to boost the eco­nomy quickly and prove that his stated com­mit­ment to get­ting nation build­ing projects under­way has mean­ing.

Among Car­ney’s cri­teria for major projects is high like­li­hood of exe­cu­tion.

Car­ney’s planned mil­it­ary over­haul and doub­ling of home­build­ing to solve the hous­ing crisis fit that descrip­tion.

So does rebuild­ing the con­ges­ted Port of Van­couver, which handles about half of Canada’s port traffic and is a notori­ous bot­tle­neck.

But Smith’s crude oil pipeline from Ath­abasca to the north­w­est B.C. port of Prince Rupert is at best many years away.

B.C. adam­antly opposes a second crude pipeline cross­ing its ter­rit­ory, as it opposed the Trans Moun­tain pipeline project (TMX).

And the TMX twinned an exist­ing pipeline dat­ing from 1953. Smith’s pipeline would require that a new route be cut through B.C. That would trig­ger another round of voci­fer­ous oppos­i­tion from envir­on­mental groups and First Nations.

And Ott­awa would have to revoke the Oil Tanker Morator­ium Act of 2019 that effect­ively bans crude ship­ments from the B.C. coast other than the Van­couver region, where the TMX’s Burn­aby ter­minal is loc­ated.

Prime Min­is­ter Mark Car­ney’s plans will clearly clash with Alberta Premier Dani­elle Smith’s tun­nel vis­ion on oil and pipelines

Given the numer­ous chal­lenges a new pipeline would face, Smith’s pro­posal is “the sort of moon shot that likely would not be con­tem­plated without all that bluster from the White House about a 51st state,” Bloomberg said earlier this month.

The $34 ­bil­lion TMX, which opened last year, oper­ates at only 85 per cent of capa­city.

The TMX says that with increased pump­ing power, its through­put could increase by about 28 per cent to 1.14 mil­lion bar­rels a day.

“That seems like a great place to start, rather than open­ing up the pristine north coast to tanker traffic,” B.C. Premier David Eby said last month.

Car­ney also doesn’t want pipelines crowding out other major projects.

They include a national east­west power grid to sat­isfy grow­ing demand for elec­tri­city.

And Car­ney wants accel­er­ated pro­gress in bring­ing the coun­try’s $107 ­bil­lion worth of crit­ical min­er­als projects into pro­duc­tion.

In a CBC inter­view last month, Car­ney sug­ges­ted that pipelines are get­ting too much atten­tion in the dis­cus­sion of national projects.

“It’s remark­able — in some circles, this con­ver­sa­tion starts and ends with pipelines,” Car­ney said.

Mean­while, the world con­tin­ues to shift away from oil. It’s been doing so since 2018, when global oil pro­duc­tion peaked.

World oil industry spend­ing on explor­a­tion and pro­duc­tion will fall by six per cent this year to $570 bil­lion, the Paris­based Inter­na­tional Energy Agency (IEA) fore­cast last week.

That com­pares with an expec­ted $610 bil­lion spent on solar alone among altern­at­ive energy sources.

Alberta has poten­tial to be a super­power in altern­at­ive energy pro­duc­tion with its extraordin­ary abund­ance of wind and solar resources. Alberta is already a lead­ing pro­du­cer of renew­able energy.

Addi­tional renew­able energy projects in Alberta could be built com­par­at­ively quickly. And Car­ney, a cham­pion of renew­ables, would be more per­suad­able to fund­ing them.

Yet Smith has given Car­ney an ulti­matum to fast ­track approval of another oil pipeline from Ath­abasca to the Pacific.

“Fail­ure to have an oil pipeline on the ini­tial list (of Car­ney’s national projects),” Smith wrote Car­ney last month, “will per­petu­ate cur­rent invest­ment uncer­tainty and send an unwel­come mes­sage to Alber­tans con­cerned about Ott­awa’s com­mit­ment to national unity.”

The quandary is that Smith has mastered pipeline pop­u­lism, fram­ing a new pipeline as indic­at­ive of whether Car­ney’s gov­ern­ment sup­ports Alberta oil p­atch more than its pre­de­cessor.

And never mind the ques­tion­able eco­nomic viab­il­ity of a new pipeline or a proper order­ing of national pri­or­it­ies.

Smith says she expects Car­ney to “oper­ate in good faith,” by which she means fast­ track­ing a new pipeline.

Smith is com­mit­ted to hold­ing a ref­er­en­dum on Alberta sov­er­eignty next year if sup­port­ers gather the neces­sary 177,000 sig­na­tures her gov­ern­ment has set as the threshold for trig­ger­ing one. Smith hasn’t said if she’ll call off the ref­er­en­dum if she gets her pipeline.

Yet it’s the pro­spect of “Wexit” more than any other factor that accounts for the cur­rent invest­ment uncer­tainty she com­plains of.

If Smith was oper­at­ing in good faith, she would acknow­ledge that.

B.C. and Alberta are about to renew old hostilities. It could get ugly

This opinion was written by Gary Mason and was published in the Globe & Mail on June 18, 2025.

As interprovincial contretemps go, the one emerging between B.C. and Alberta over the future of pipeline construction in Canada is shaping up to be a doozy.

Of course, the country has witnessed these two jurisdictions square off before, over a similar issue – the proposed expansion of a pipeline running Albertan oil to B.C.’s coastline. That was a weird one – on one side, you had former Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley, and on the other, her close friend and fellow New Democrat, former B.C. premier John Horgan.

It got heated – at least for the cameras. But I was never convinced the angry words exchanged publicly over B.C.’s staunch opposition to the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX) were all that real.

Mr. Horgan understood Ms. Notley needed the pipeline for political purposes (not to mention her provincial economy) and she, in turn, knew Mr. Horgan had a broad swath of his province opposed to the pipeline on environmental grounds. They were both just doing their job. The B.C. premier also knew that the federal government held the trump card and so, if it went ahead, his hands were clean. He could say he did his best but ultimately the final call was not his.

Which brings us to what looks like a renewed standoff between the two provinces over current Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s desire to see a new pipeline built between her province and the northwest coast of Canada’s westernmost province. B.C. hasn’t said absolutely no under any circumstances, but it has certainly given off vibes that it isn’t warm to the idea.

B.C.’s reluctance isn’t difficult to understand. The dynamics that existed a decade ago when the two provinces were feuding over the TMX expansion still exist today. Premier David Eby has a constituency that cares about the environment, just as Ms. Smith has a constituency that wants to “drill baby drill.” B.C. is already heavily invested in gas pipelines, which many environmentalists in the province are not thrilled about. An additional pipeline carrying bitumen from Alberta would be fiercely opposed in B.C., not least of which by Indigenous groups.

Ms. Smith was recently on CBC’s Rosemary Barton Live. When asked what she might be able to “put on the table” to sweeten the pot for B.C. regarding a pipeline, the Alberta Premier responded: “Well, it’s Team Canada or not.”

I’m certain that line would have provoked gales of laughter in Victoria, and likely Ottawa, too. This is the same Premier who has said that if Alberta doesn’t get a new pipeline there will be a “national unity crisis” the likes of which the country hasn’t seen before. This is the same Premier who tabled legislation making it easier for a referendum on Alberta separatism to be held. The same Premier who tabled a list of nine demands that needed to be met to avoid a major constitutional crisis in Canada.

Yes, it’s Team Canada or not indeed.

I believe another pipeline is in the country’s interest, not just Alberta’s. If the goal is to truly be an energy superpower, as Prime Minister Mark Carney has said, then you are either serious about it or not. You need to put rules in place that don’t drive away potential private-sector investments in any new pipeline, while not utterly abandoning our obligations to the environment at the same time.

Producing oil with lower emissions is critical to this venture. That means there will need to be a massive investment by industry in carbon capture and storage. Negotiations with First Nations along any proposed route will have to be honest and legitimate, not performative, as they have been in the past. Even then, it may result in Ottawa having to force a pipeline through over strong objections.

In any event, there is a long way to go before any decision is made on a new pipeline, and a lot of due diligence that will need to occur. Let’s hope that in the meantime we don’t get a lot of Ms. Smith’s threats and constant bashing of the federal government, for which she’s well known.

You can’t make outrageous statements like Canada has “the lowest living standards in the world” – as the Premier recently told CTV News host Vassy Kapelos in attempting to make her case for another pipeline – and expect the rest of the country to have any sympathy for your position. Or to take you seriously.

I understand that it plays well in Alberta, where the governing United Conservative Party has a visceral disdain for all things Liberal. But you can’t extend one hand and say please, while with the other you’re holding up a middle finger.

Why a province like B.C. blocks a pipeline for a province like Alberta

This opinion was written by Christopher Worswick, Chair of the economics department at Carleton University and was published in the Globe & Mail on June 12, 2025.

In announcing the new federal legislation to advance ‘nation-building projects’ on June 6, Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that Ottawa would not impose a project on any province.

The warm glow coming from the Prime Minister and premiers after their recent meeting suggests progress on infrastructure development, but the meeting itself is a symptom of an emerging problem holding back productivity growth in Canada.

That problem is the provinces. Or rather, the power Prime Minister Mark Carney is abdicating to them. Mr. Carney’s pursuit of consensus on new infrastructure projects is likely to hold up economically beneficial investments.

In 1986, U.S. economists Sanford Grossman and Oliver Hart described what is now known as the “hold-up” problem: There are two parties to an investment decision. The decision potentially benefits both, and both need to co-operate to make a project work. And so the person who gets a relatively smaller benefit can hold up the entire project by not co-operating, perhaps hoping to bargain for a better deal in the future.

Worrying examples of the hold-up problem are emerging in Canadian politics. One example is the disagreement between the governments of Alberta and British Columbia over whether there should be an oil pipeline from Alberta to the northern B.C. coast. Alberta appears ready to build such a pipeline, but no doubt will only do this if a guarantee is in place that the pipeline will go to tidewater and the oil is allowed to be shipped overseas. Similarly, oil companies may not invest in expanded production in Alberta unless the proposed pipeline moves forward.

B.C. benefits from a pipeline, too, not least in terms of new jobs and benefit-sharing agreements with Indigenous groups whose lands are involved. But these benefits are not nearly as great as Alberta’s. The province thus has less to lose – and more to gain if it can bargain for better terms – when it holds up the entire project.

This is a problem that should not exist. In 1867, the designers of Canada’s Constitution clearly understood the hold-up problem because they allocated decisionmaking over infrastructure projects that cross provincial boundaries solely to the federal government. It is alarming how we are backtracking from that clear constitutional allocation of power. In announcing the new federal legislation to advance “nation-building projects” on June 6, Mr. Carney stated that Ottawa would not impose a project on any province.

Mr. Carney would be within his right to do so. However, to broach that so publicly effectively gives one or more of the provinces a veto over such major infrastructure. Provinces should not have such a veto, and even discussing this possibility is no doubt fuelling the frustrations of many Western Canadians.

If the federal government gives away its power under the Constitution, not only might we have lower investment, we may also see coalitions forming by groups of provinces to fill the policy gap created. This would not be as economically efficient as a federally initiated project, and it would threaten national unity.

For example, the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have all shown interest in a pipeline going east. Presumably these four governments could build a pipeline from Alberta with a spur line to the port at Churchill, Man., and another line continuing above the Great Lakes and down to Southern Ontario, ending the need to use Line 5 coming out of the United States to bring oil and gas into Eastern Canada.

This same line could also extend to the Ontario and Quebec border. Even if Quebec did not support the pipeline traversing its territory, oil could be transported by rail or truck across Quebec to New Brunswick where it could be refined or shipped to Europe.

This Alberta-to-Ontario pipeline might be seen by the propipeline provinces as the best remaining option if the federal government allows both B.C. and Quebec to veto pipelines on their territories. In this world, where it takes provinces making deals like this to build economically beneficial infrastructure, is Canada an effective country or just a loose affiliation of semi-autonomous regions?

Mr. Carney should state clearly that interprovincial infrastructure projects are in the federal jurisdiction and no province can veto a project. Then, after appropriate consultation with both the affected provinces and Indigenous peoples, his government should decide what projects are in Canada’s interest. Mr. Carney might also consider finding ways to raise the incentives for provinces that benefit less from projects that require their co-operation.

Ultimately, though, federal power should not be relinquished to provinces. That is what was expected when the Constitution was first written, and this would be the best way to avoid Canada’s growing infrastructure hold-up problem.

Popular on the road, trouble back home

Premier Doug Ford said in Saskatoon that he'd never seen so much unity and comity at a conference of first ministers. But he must open his eyes and ears to the divisions that remain at home here in Ontario, Martin Regg Cohn writes.

Ford feels the love at first min­is­ters con­fer­ence but ignores the trouble brew­ing at home

This opinion was written by Martin Regg Cohn and was published in the Toronto Star on June 3, 2025.

Doug Ford is learn­ing the hard way that nation­build­ing and road­build­ing are easier said (on the road) than done (at home).

The para­dox for Ontario’s pop­u­list premier is that he does best when he’s out­side Ontario.

In Saska­toon on Monday, Ford basked in his role as leader of the pack of premi­ers meet­ing with Prime Min­is­ter Mark Car­ney. But while the assembled first min­is­ters were toast­ing Ford around the con­fer­ence table, pro­test­ers from First Nations were taunt­ing him at Queen’s Park.

That’s polit­ics.

Many in Ontario are rail­ing against his rush to bull­doze the province and bury envir­on­mental red tape. Many more out­side Ontario are ral­ly­ing to Ford for res­cuing Canada from Don­ald Trump’s tar­iffs.

For all the res­ist­ance at home, the premier is being rewar­ded far and wide. Not just by his fel­low politi­cians but by pub­lic opin­ion, as meas­ured in a new Pol­lara poll pub­lished in the Star on the eve of the first min­is­ters’ meet­ing.

Remark­ably, Ford is now the most pop­u­lar premier in Canada. The poll found that 47 per cent of people had a pos­it­ive impres­sion Ford, versus 27 per cent neg­at­ive, for a net rat­ing of plus­19 per cent.

That’s as good as it gets for Ford, who has his­tor­ic­ally been at the bot­tom of the national bar­rel since win­ning power in 2018. Inter­est­ingly, his net pos­it­ives are nearly twice as high out­side Ontario (plus­23) as in­province (plus­12) — which might be bit­ter­sweet news if not for the fact that Ford’s num­bers were good enough to land him a third con­sec­ut­ive major­ity gov­ern­ment last Feb­ru­ary.

While the polling num­bers are music to his ears, Car­ney’s new Lib­eral gov­ern­ment is also singing the same tune on elim­in­at­ing duplic­a­tion to speed up approvals and ramp up devel­op­ment.

Many of his fel­low premi­ers are also chor­us­ing their approval, after sign­ing their names to bilat­eral agree­ments with Ontario to remove inter­pro­vin­cial eco­nomic bar­ri­ers.

“I can’t keep up with the flurry of announce­ments of free trade agree­ments between provinces and across the coun­try,” the prime min­is­ter mused and enthused on Monday — a ref­er­ence to the bilat­eral deals inked by Ontario with Alberta, Man­itoba, Saskat­chewan, Nova Sco­tia and P.E.I.

There’s much to be said for unity, given the his­tory of Que­bec sep­ar­at­ism and the future of Alberta’s ref­er­en­dum envy. But there are prob­lems on the hori­zon that Ford can­not ignore and Car­ney can­not evade.

For all the talk of national unity — not to men­tion Ford singing “Love Is In The Air” as he walked in Monday with Alberta’s Dani­elle Smith — Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Wood­house Nepinak has been rais­ing her own con­cerns. The stream­lined approvals sought by Car­ney and the premi­ers are a prob­lem for Indi­gen­ous groups who jeal­ously guard their right to be con­sul­ted.

While the AFN’s cri­ti­cisms have not yet risen to the level of protest seen in Ontario, Monday’s demon­stra­tion against an absent Ford at Queen’s Park may be a sign of things to come for Car­ney.

Ford serves this year as rotat­ing head of the Coun­cil of the Fed­er­a­tion, which brings together all the premi­ers. He has gone out of his way to find com­mon ground with the other provinces, not­ably on redu­cing rules and reg­u­la­tions that sty­mie inter­pro­vin­cial trade.

But no mat­ter how much he says, “United we stand,” where you stand depends on where you sit and where the votes are. While Alberta is push­ing hard for pipelines — backed by Ontario — B.C. and Que­bec are heed­ing their voters and echo­ing Indi­gen­ous groups in refus­ing to be rushed.

While pipelines are at the top of Smith’s list for Alberta’s nation­build­ing pri­or­it­ies, Ford’s list is no less con­tro­ver­sial. His “Pro­tect Ontario by Unleash­ing Our Eco­nomy Act” would cre­ate unpre­ced­en­ted “Spe­cial Eco­nomic Zones” in the north­ern Ring of Fire where local Indi­gen­ous groups insist on full con­sulta­tions, which have dragged on for years.

Ford repeated Monday that there is no stop­ping him. He has also raised hackles by pri­or­it­iz­ing his untested plan to build a tun­nel under High­way 401, insist­ing it would qual­ify as one of those spe­cial zones with rapid approvals that foster national unity, freed from the rig­or­ous envir­on­mental assess­ments of the past.

The trouble with untram­melled devel­op­ment, or tramp­ling over tra­di­tional lands, is that it can stir divi­sion in the name of national unity. That’s not to say that Cana­dians can con­tinue to be bogged down in the future as in the past, given the eco­nomic peril of the present — “united we stand” can­not mean stand­ing still, but it also requires situ­ational aware­ness.

Car­ney’s man­tra, “One project, one review,” makes sense if it elim­in­ates fed­eral and pro­vin­cial duplic­a­tion, but not if it erodes envir­on­mental assess­ments — a trap that the prime min­is­ter has prom­ised not to fall into by pledging again Monday to “respect our envir­on­mental respons­ib­il­it­ies.”

Ford’s impulse to stress national unity, while min­im­iz­ing First Nations’ con­cerns, will ulti­mately bog him down if he doesn’t sit down first with Indi­gen­ous lead­ers to rebuild trust.

Ford said in Saska­toon that he’d never seen so much unity and comity at a con­fer­ence of first min­is­ters. But he needs to open his eyes and ears to the divi­sions that remain at home here in Ontario — the unfin­ished busi­ness that needs his atten­tion before he can pro­claim, as he did again Monday, that “Canada is open for busi­ness.”