BC Considers Legal Challenge to Alberta-Ottawa Pipeline Deal, Waits for Details

British Columbia is leaving the door open to joining legal challenges against a new pipeline project, should Indigenous coastal First Nations decide to pursue them, as negotiations continue over a federal-provincial energy agreement with Alberta.

The province’s Justice Minister, Niki Sharma, stated that the government will await the full details of the agreement before considering launching its own legal challenge.

The Premier is focused on Team Canada and collaboration. We will wait before making a pronouncement.

The move comes after Premier David Eby publicly questioned information provided by federal officials. On Monday, Eby stated that he had been assured by federal Minister Mark Carney during a phone call that the agreement was not finalized. However, just three hours later, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and Radio-Canada revealed key details of the proposed deal.

According to sources at CBC and Radio-Canada, the agreement would support the construction of a pipeline to the British Columbia coast.

Earlier reports from Radio-Canada and other news outlets indicated the energy accord would include an exemption to the moratorium on large tankers, currently in place along British Columbia’s northern coast.

In exchange, Alberta would strengthen its carbon pricing system for large oil and gas industries and move forward with the Pathways Alliance carbon capture project, valued at CAD $16.5 billion. The agreement aims to balance energy development with environmental concerns, a key challenge for Canada’s energy sector.

Eby, who was excluded from the negotiations, has urged Ottawa to not play politics, fearing that the agreement could jeopardize energy projects reliant on the support of coastal First Nations.

The British Columbia Premier expressed concern that the tanker moratorium exemption could be poorly received by First Nations communities who are already cautiously supporting natural gas projects, such as Ksi Lisms and the second phase of LNG Canada in Kitimat.

Compared to Alberta, our projects are real, in partnership with First Nations, with proponents, with financing. The pipeline has no route, no money, and no proponents.

Despite characterizing the potential pipeline as “fictional,” Stewart Prest, a political science instructor at the University of British Columbia, pointed out that pipeline construction falls under federal jurisdiction.

The difficulty for Ottawa is who will pay the bill. When you think about Trans Mountain, Ottawa bought it to support Alberta and [the Trudeau government] remained very unpopular in that province.

Prest recalled that former British Columbia Premier John Horgan previously utilized all the tools at his disposal to oppose the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline into his province.

Ultimately, in 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed British Columbia’s appeal, removing the last legal option available to the Horgan government.

Both the Supreme Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that interprovincial transportation remains a federal responsibility.

However, the landscape has shifted somewhat since then, with Canada enacting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2021. This requires Ottawa to consult with Indigenous communities affected by infrastructure projects, such as pipelines, and collaborate with them, explained George Hoberg, an emeritus professor at the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs.

The law, however, has yet to be tested in court.

The law puts additional pressure on Alberta and any other proponent to obtain the support of First Nations affected by the pipeline project in advance. Except they have already said no repeatedly.

Alberta has acknowledged that Indigenous communities must be part of the discussions and could potentially become co-owners of the pipeline.

Notably, neither British Columbia nor coastal First Nations were invited to participate in the negotiations surrounding the agreement, unlike Saskatchewan.