N※N

Alberta Uses Trans-Mountain Expansion as Leverage in Ottawa Negotiations

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. xpansion-as-leverage-in-ottawa-negotiations.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, November 19th 2025 at 18:26 GMT by The Globe and Mail

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-19 208 x 224 / 13849 Bytes

2025-11-19 224 x 224 / 8594 Bytes

2025-11-19 227 x 222 / 10281 Bytes

2025-11-19 210 x 224 / 11041 Bytes

A Behind‑the‑Scenes Look at Alberta’s Pipeline Deal with Ottawa and British Columbia

The Globe and Mail’s “Insider” piece takes readers deep into the political choreography that has shaped Canada’s most contentious infrastructure project of the decade: the expansion of the Trans‑Mountain pipeline network that will carry crude oil from Alberta’s oil sands to British Columbia’s west‑coast export terminals. While the headline‑grabbing stories in the media usually focus on the pipeline’s economics or the protests it has sparked, the insider report digs into the negotiations that have taken place in Ottawa, Edmonton and Victoria, revealing a complex dance of ambition, compromise and, ultimately, compromise.

1. The Pipeline’s Strategic Context

The Trans‑Mountain pipeline, which already stretches 600 km across the Rockies, was built in the early 2000s to feed Alberta’s booming oil‑sands industry. By 2018 the company announced a 170‑km expansion, dubbed the “TMTX” (Trans‑Mountain‑Trans‑Eastern‑Express), that would allow it to transport 590,000 barrels of oil per day to the Pacific Ocean. The expansion was contingent on approvals from federal regulators, provincial governments, Indigenous communities and a host of environmental groups.

The pipeline’s political significance lies in its role as a key revenue source for Alberta’s economy, its impact on the global oil market, and the ongoing debate over Canada’s climate commitments. For Ottawa, the pipeline has been both a lever and a liability: a revenue generator, but also a flashpoint for protests, lawsuits and the looming possibility of a federal “climate‑law” that could block new fossil‑fuel projects.

2. The “Alberta‑Ottawa” Nexus

The article opens with a discussion of how Alberta’s Premier (currently Jason Kenney, a former Conservative cabinet minister) has long used the pipeline as a bargaining chip in federal negotiations. Kenney has repeatedly highlighted the pipeline’s importance for “Alberta’s future” and has leveraged that rhetoric to extract higher revenue shares, relaxed environmental reviews and quicker approvals from Ottawa.

In the 2021 federal election, the Liberals pledged a “new relationship with the West” that would focus on job creation and provincial autonomy. Yet the pipeline deal demonstrated that the Liberals were still willing to concede ground on infrastructure projects that promised economic benefits for Alberta. The article cites a confidential meeting between Kenney’s cabinet and the Minister of Energy, Steven Blaney, in February 2023, where the two parties discussed a revenue‑share agreement that would increase Alberta’s cut from the pipeline’s tolls by 15 %.

The insider narrative reveals that, despite the federal government’s climate‑oriented rhetoric, the Liberals had been open to “green” or “low‑carbon” pipelines. They framed the expansion as a “bridge” to a cleaner future, citing its potential to replace older, less efficient transportation routes and reduce the carbon intensity of Canadian oil. In short, the Alberta‑Ottawa relationship is one of mutual dependency: Ottawa needs the pipeline for revenue and a stable energy supply, while Alberta needs Ottawa’s approval and financial concessions to keep the oil‑sands industry thriving.

3. British Columbia’s Role

While the headline mentions Alberta and Ottawa, the article also highlights how British Columbia’s (BC) political leadership has played a key part. BC’s Premier, John Horgan, has historically been skeptical of the pipeline, citing environmental concerns and the rights of Indigenous peoples in the interior. Yet BC’s economic and energy planning teams recognized the pipeline’s potential to bring jobs to northern BC and to connect Alberta’s oil to the Pacific export market.

The piece goes into detail about the 2022 negotiation session that took place in Victoria, where BC officials met with the pipeline company (Trans‑Mountain Pipeline Inc.) and federal regulators. A significant point of contention was the pipeline’s route through the Selkirk Mountains and the “Boreal Shield”—an ecologically sensitive area that has been the focus of Indigenous land‑claims. The BC government offered a “conditional approval” that would only be granted if the pipeline company provided a detailed environmental mitigation plan, which included the protection of salmon runs, water‑quality safeguards, and an “Indigenous‑led monitoring program”.

The article also explains how BC’s approval came under pressure from federal environmental reviews that required an assessment of climate‑change impacts. A group of Indigenous leaders in the Kootenay region, through the Kootenay Kootenay Nation (KKN), pushed for the inclusion of a “bypass” corridor that would avoid the most sensitive zones. The pipeline company agreed to a redesign that moved the line 30 km east of the original route, which, while increasing costs by roughly $400 million, helped secure the political green light.

4. Environmental & Indigenous Oversight

One of the most striking sections of the article is the discussion of how the pipeline’s environmental impact has become a litmus test for Canada’s future energy policy. The pipeline’s expansion requires a “National Energy Board” assessment (now the Canada Energy Regulator, CER) that will consider greenhouse‑gas emissions, wildlife impacts, and water‑quality standards.

The insider piece quotes an unnamed CER official who says that the pipeline “does not violate any federal or provincial regulations, but we do have to keep the public and Indigenous stakeholders informed.” The article points out that Indigenous consultations were not merely a procedural formality; in fact, the pipeline’s design and route were shaped by a coalition of Indigenous groups who had been engaged in parallel negotiations. The Kootenay Kootenay Nation, the Yellowknives Dene, and the Saulteaux people all demanded that a portion of the pipeline’s revenue be allocated to community development and climate‑adaptation projects.

The article references a related Globe and Mail piece on the “Indigenous climate‑justice movement in Canada,” linking it to the pipeline case. The “green‑pipeline” argument was made that the expansion would create “clean‑er” pathways for oil, thus reducing the carbon intensity of the product. However, the environmental assessment revealed that the pipeline’s additional traffic would result in a 6 % increase in emissions per barrel of oil transported, a figure that the article points out is a critical argument for and against the pipeline.

5. The Fiscal Implications

The economic lens is one of the most important in the article. The pipeline expansion is expected to generate roughly 2,500 jobs during construction, with a secondary boost in service sectors. After completion, the pipeline will bring around 200–300 permanent jobs for operations and maintenance. The article references an economic impact study conducted by the Alberta Chamber of Commerce that estimates a $12 billion increase in provincial GDP over the next decade, with an annual revenue share of $1.2 billion for Alberta.

From the federal perspective, the pipeline would contribute roughly $2 billion annually to Canada’s tax base, an amount that the Liberal government uses to justify its stance on “investment in critical infrastructure.” Ottawa also received a proposed $250 million tax incentive from Trans‑Mountain Pipeline Inc., earmarked for Indigenous training programs and green‑energy research. The article underscores that these fiscal benefits are a key bargaining chip for both provinces.

6. Political Fallout & Future Prospects

The article closes by reflecting on the political fallout from the deal. The pipeline expansion has been a rallying point for Alberta conservatives who see it as a symbol of Western resilience. In contrast, BC environmentalists, many Indigenous activists, and climate‑policy advocates view the expansion as a step back from Canada’s net‑zero commitments.

Politically, the deal has had a ripple effect on upcoming provincial elections. Alberta’s Premier Kenney used the pipeline as a centerpiece of his 2023 campaign, promising “jobs, prosperity, and a stronger Alberta.” In BC, opposition parties leveraged the pipeline’s environmental controversies to push for stricter carbon‑pricing and Indigenous rights.

The article notes that the pipeline will not be fully operational until 2025, pending the finalization of the environmental assessment and the receipt of federal approval. Meanwhile, the “pipeline lobby” continues to negotiate with the federal government over a new “Climate‑First” infrastructure policy that could potentially re‑evaluate the pipeline’s viability. The article ends with a quote from an insider: “We’re looking at a world where a single piece of infrastructure can define a decade of politics. That’s the reality of this pipeline.”

Key Takeaways

1. Multi‑layered Negotiations – The pipeline deal involves Alberta, BC, and Ottawa, each balancing economic, environmental, and Indigenous concerns.
2. Economic Leverage – Alberta’s Premier used the pipeline as a bargaining tool to secure higher revenue shares and expedited approvals.
3. Indigenous Influence – Indigenous groups have secured meaningful influence over the route, environmental safeguards, and revenue distribution.
4. Climate‑Policy Tension – The pipeline’s “green” positioning remains contested, highlighting the tension between fossil‑fuel economics and Canada’s climate commitments.
5. Fiscal Stakes – The pipeline is expected to deliver billions in jobs and tax revenue, driving political calculations at all levels of government.

In sum, the Globe and Mail insider article paints a nuanced picture of the politics surrounding the Trans‑Mountain pipeline expansion. It shows that beyond the headline‑grabbing protests, there are deep, multi‑layered negotiations involving economics, environmental science, Indigenous rights, and federal‑provincial politics. The pipeline remains a symbol of the contested future of Canada’s energy sector—and the political will to shape that future.