Carney deal weakens climate goals, pushes B.C. pipeline

Environmental advocacy organizations are speaking out against the federal government’s newest deal with Alberta to weaken climate goals and expedite the construction of another oil pipeline to the B.C. coast. “With today’s announcement, Prime Minister [Mark] Carney is taking a sledgehammer to one of the last remaining pillars of Canada’s climate plan,” said Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, in a Friday (May 15) news release. Meanwhile, an alliance of Coastal First Nations in northeastern B.C. reiterated local opposition to rescinding the

ban on heavy oil tankers docking in the region. “No offer of equity or ownership will change our position, and no proponent is acceptable to us,” said Marilyn Slett, Heiltsuk chief and president of the Coastal First Nations, in a written statement. And Slett says federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson told the group “no project, no route” would proceed without the support of affected First Nations. The new “implementation agreement” struck on Friday expands on a Nov. 27 memorandum of understanding that exchanges federal support

of a pipeline project proposal for Alberta’s promise to work on a slate of climate goals. The new agreement maintains the pipeline objective, while loosening some of the province’s carbon pricing commitments. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith must still submit a project proposal to the major projects office by July 1. A news release from her province says the latest deal will create a pathway for construction to begin on a new pipeline “as early as” Sept. 1, 2027. While Smith has often said she prefers

a route to B.C.’s north coast, which is a shorter sail to Asian markets, she told CTV News after the new deal was announced that a southern route is now on the table, alongside northern options. B.C. Premier David Eby criticized the latest deal as rewarding Alberta’s separatist threats, and reiterated his opposition to a northern route. But B.C. Energy Minister Adrian Dix recently called talk of a southern route — perhaps parallel to the current Trans Mountain pipeline — a “positive shift,” suggesting Eby’s

government may be open to such a proposal. While a southern route would assuage the concerns of the Coastal First Nations alliance by avoiding member nations’ territory, it would do nothing to counter concerns from environmental groups critical of the easing of carbon pricing. The price companies must pay to emit a tonne of CO2 equivalent in Alberta is set based on an agreement between the federal and provincial governments. This is currently $95 per tonne and scheduled to rise to $170 per tonne by

2030. But this new deal scales that way back, setting new goals of $115 per tonne by 2030, and $140 per tonne by 2040. The Alberta government estimates the new prices will save companies $240 billion between now and 2050. West Coast Environmental Law, an advocacy organization, says this lets Canada’s worst polluter off the hook. “It will let the province causing the most climate damage pay peanuts for its pollution,” said West Coast staff lawyer Anna Johnston in a news release. “There is clearly

only one province in Prime Minister Carney’s Canada. It’s Alberta, and it gets a free pass while the rest of Canada suffers the consequences.” West Coast Environmental also points to a recent discussion paper released by the federal government as a roadmap for energy project deregulation that could speed the extinction of species such as the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. That paper proposes regulatory reform to make oil pipelines, transmission lines and offshore energy projects the sole responsibility of the Canada Energy Regulator, thereby

exempting them from the standard impact assessment process and the jeopardy test for species at risk, provided “all reasonable efforts” are made to reduce impacts on those species. “Considering last week’s major project deregulation agenda, Canada loses everything in this deal – a strong price on pollution, endangered species protection, and its ability to safeguard its lakes, rivers, and coastlines,” Johnston said. If the pipeline runs to southern B.C. alongside Trans Mountain, which was recently “twinned” at a publicly subsidized cost of $30 billion, there

is no guarantee it would be profitable. This is a case made regularly by Eby and Dix, who argue for optimizing the current line instead. Brouillette of the Climate Action Network says collapsing oil demand will add to this uncertainty, compounding the dicey financial feasibility of a new pipeline. “The project would not be viable without public subsidies — and Canadians do not want their money wasted on another boondoggle of a pipeline,” she said. Brouillette’s group also sent out a rundown of opinions from

other environmental organizations. Thomas Green of the David Suzuki Foundation said the federal government is handing Alberta a “decade-long permission slip to keep polluting.” Liz McDowell in Stand.Earth said Carney is trying to “bulldoze” longstanding environmental protections to get the pipeline built. Conor Curtis of Sierra Club Canada says the agreement effectively means the Canadian and Alberta governments are willing to do what “U.S. oil companies tell them to do,” even if that means fewer green Canadian jobs and more wildfires. Keith Stewart of Greenpeace

Canada warned against confusing “what is good for oil companies with what is good for regular people.” But Smith justifies the deal by advocating for expanded market access and “creating the conditions for long-term investment in our province’s energy sector,” while Carney’s messaging focuses on boosting the economy as a whole.

Alberta pipeline, B.C. coast, Climate Action Network Canada, Coastal First Nations, carbon pricing, implementation agreement, Mark Carney, Danielle Smith, Tim Hodgson, David Eby, Adrian Dix, Trans Mountain twinning