CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
by Jim Warren
Perceptions matter in politics and public affairs, even when they’re wrong. Carefully curated misperceptions about Mark Carney got him elected prime minister. Canadian voters, mostly from beyond the prairies, were deceived by his high-powered resume. They perceived him as the economic wizard and financial mastermind who could get the Canadian economy back on track that helped get him elected prime minister.
And we know how that’s been working so far.
Liberal spin doctors, image polishers and perception manipulators were no doubt proud of their efforts on July 2. The PM’s agenda for the day was apparently designed to shore up support for the federal Liberals among their environmentalist and climate activist supporters, not to mention climate alarmists within the Liberal caucus.
Many supporters of conventional energy and the need for a new oil pipeline to the West Coast had been looking forward to a July 2 announcement. It was the day that the route of the coastal pipeline was scheduled to be announced.
There were a couple of pipeline project milestones relevant to the November 25 MOU scheduled to be met and announced over the course of 2026. On July 2, Alberta was to present its preferred choice for the route of the pipeline. In September, Alberta’s application for project approval would be submitted. By that time it was widely assumed the proponents would be announced.
We were told that Danielle Smith and Carney would be meeting on the 2nd, presumably to make the big route announcement.
A CBC News report on June 1 claimed reporters had obtained information about Alberta’s preferred routes. The report included a map showing three route options for a pipeline running from Alberta to the Northwest coast of BC. While not shown on the map, the news report claimed a more Southerly route was also being considered. The map from the article is provided below.
The three Northern options fell within the boundaries of the West Coast Tanker Ban, the infamous Bill C-48. Most industry observers assumed this would not be a problem. Ottawa would simply carve out an exception for the route and terminal site selected.
Indeed, earlier in 2026, the prime minister had inferred as much, tossing a reference to a possible carve-out into one of his mumbled word salads. Besides, the three Northern routes were around one hundred miles or more North of the white-coloured black bears’ range which is of principal concern to environmentalists.
The three Northern options considered by Alberta
Few of Us Saw it Coming
Early on July 2, prior to his scheduled meeting with Danielle Smith, Mark Carney was in BC meeting with David Eby. Carney and Eby followed their meeting with statements to the media. It turns out there would be no need to await an announcement from Danielle Smith regarding Alberta’s decision about which route they preferred. That decision had been announced, by the prime minister and the BC’s premier.
Eby and Carney’s statement ended the possibility that Alberta might select one of the Northern options. Eby and Carney proudly announced that the Tanker Ban would remain sacrosanct. No Northern route would or could be approved. Justin Trudeau’s West Coast legacy had in effect been designated sacred ground.
My hunch is the event was intentionally set up to leave the impression that the decision to preserve the Tanker Ban was made by Carney and Eby. They were sending a tough love message to pipeline supporters who thought Alberta would have genuine influence over decisions about the route.
Surprise number two was the announcement that BC would be guaranteed a financial interest in the pipeline, not by way of shares or the normal taxes that BC collects from pipeline owners and operators, but what one reporter described as a sort of royalty. The province would be granted the ability to collect what might reasonably be called an unearned rent on top of any taxes collected by Victoria and municipalities.
It is starting to look like every government along the pipeline’s route has its hand out for a piece of the action, which they all assume they are entitled to. If they don’t get it they might threaten to seek a legal injunction to stop the project or lay down in front of the bulldozers.
And then there was what seemed like a gratuitous statement about the pipeline owners having to indemnify BC for any damage caused by the pipeline. Pipelines are already held to account by governments by way of fines and compensation for damages related to things like oil spills.
But wait, maybe indemnify means something different in BC than it does in the real world. Will the pipeline be held responsible for hurt feelings? What about young people who can’t sleep because the pipeline is contributing to an imminent, planetary apocalypse?
What Was left for Danielle Smith to Announce?
So much for cooperative federalism and good faith negotiations; when Carney and Eby had announced the route for the pipeline, no Alberta representative was in the picture. Their boasting about preserving the Tanker Ban and the fact their meeting occurred first helps convey the notion that they alone had decided on the route. The meeting with Smith later in the day would give Carney the opportunity to lay down the law.
Sure, Smith was probably aware that the Southern route was the chosen option. But if she was, it was probably a mistake to politely wait to announce it alongside the prime minister. If the July 2 announcement was to include items of importance to BC, Alberta and Ottawa it should have been made by Smith, Eby and Carney on the same day at the same time in the same room. Instead the day’s events will leave the impression that Alberta has been put in its place and that Carney and his allies in the environmental movement are Canada’s decision makers. The net result was a humiliating insult to Premier Smith and Albertans.
Making matters worse, the day’s news included the uncomfortable fact that no big private sector proponent(s) or foreign sovereign wealth fund had stepped up to the plate to build the pipeline.
Smith, her officials, and people up to speed on industry news were aware investors had serious concerns about the commercial viability of the pipeline. The big barriers were well known: the effects of the industrial carbon tax and the expense of the Pathways carbon capture system made the project unviable as a business proposition. No less distressing to investors were concerns about the impact of protests, court cases, and regulatory snags associated with Bill C-69 which could cause the project to be hopelessly delayed or cancelled.
Some people, including yours truly, naively assumed that behind the scenes over the past several months Alberta’s representatives at the negotiating table were hammering Ottawa to get the barriers removed or at least modified. No such luck. Alberta’s taxpayers are now on the hook to provide a mountain of capital if they want to see the pipeline built.
Given that Alberta’s capacity to obtain the conditions necessary for a commercially viable pipeline, along with the demeaning announcement process on July 2, Albertans are clearly not partners in a joint venture with Ottawa. Carney sees pipeline supporters as supplicants. They are expected to go cap in hand to Ottawa and beg for compromises and concessions that won’t be granted.
At least that’s the reasonable perception July 2 will leave among pipeline skeptics.
Share This:
OPINION: Carney’s Pipeline Power Play: How Alberta Was Put in Its Place – Jim Warren