From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

In a recent meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney, the provincial premiers discussed major infrastructure and energy projects to be fast-tracked through a new federal approval process. While the general sentiment was that the meeting was productive and collaborative, the British Columbia government seemingly shot down Alberta’s proposed pipeline to B.C.’s northern coast. This political resistance to new pipeline infrastructure overlooks the positive potential impact such projects could have for Canada and beyond.

Prime Minister Carney plans to table legislation that would create a new major projects office tasked with reducing approval times from five to two years, among other measures. Major projects must meet numerous criteria before deemed in the “national interest” and expedited. The premiers have compiled a short-list of projects for consideration though the full list has not been publicly released.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s proposed pipeline would transfer bitumen to the Port of Prince Rupert in B.C., which would open up access to Asian markets. B.C. Deputy Premier Niki Sharma, who attended the recent meeting in place of B.C. Premier David Eby, said the proposal has “no proponent” at this stage and that her government plans to focus on “shovel-ready projects.”

And it isn’t just the Eby government resisting the project—Steven Guilbeault, a member of Carney’s cabinet, recently dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure, including to B.C.’s coast, based on incorrect information about the Trans Mountain pipeline’s capacity and future oil demand.

Again, this political resistance ignores key facts about Canada’s energy sector, including our current overreliance on a single customer. Currently, 97 per cent of our oil exports go to the United States. This heavy reliance on the U.S. market has made Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes, as highlighted by the recent threat of tariffs on Canadian energy. Expanding pipeline infrastructure—both westward, as proposed by Premier Smith, and eastward—would help us diversify our export market and allow Canada to reach customers in Asia and Europe.

And pipeline expansion is not just about exports; it’s also about enhancing energy security at home. Some parts of our country, namely Ontario and Quebec, remain heavily dependent on U.S. pipelines to meet their energy needs. Specifically, due to the lack of an west-east pipeline dedicated to oil, for more than 70 years Canadian oil extracted in Alberta has passed through the U.S. via Enbridge’s network before returning to Ontario.

Finally, this discussion shouldn’t be limited to oil. There is and will continue to be strong demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in many parts of the world, including in Asia, for many years to come, which presents Canada with a significant opportunity to become a major LNG exporter and provide cleaner-burning fuel to countries such as China and India. However, building the necessary infrastructure (pipelines and LNG terminals) is critical if we’re serious about seizing this opportunity.

Governments across Canada should support critical energy infrastructure, including pipelines. This means putting politics aside and recognizing the importance of infrastructure in expanding export opportunities, ensuring energy security, reducing global emissions and creating prosperity across the country.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

From Resource Works

By Nelson Bennett

Ksi Lisims LNG too important to fail

The BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) is expected to soon determine whether the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) pipeline project has been “substantially started” as per the conditions of its provincial environmental certificate. Later this summer, the EAO is also expected to issue a recommendation on the Ksi Lisims LNG project, which would be supplied by the PRGT pipeline.

If these regulatory hurdles are cleared, the project is still likely to face court challenges, including judicial review applications from environmental groups and potentially the Gitanyow First Nation. The stakes are high: Ksi Lisims LNG represents a $20 billion investment and is a clean energy mega-project that the government of Premier David Eby cannot afford to lose, both in terms of economic development and reconciliation with Indigenous communities.

Should the EAO conclude that PRGT has not made a substantial start, the project’s environmental certificate would expire. The proponents—the Nisga’a Nation and Western LNG—would then be required to restart the environmental review process from scratch. This would result in years of delay and potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs. Timing is especially critical for LNG projects targeting Asian markets, where long-term supply contracts, often lasting 15 to 20 years, must align with project timelines. Ksi Lisims aims to be operational by 2029.

Petronas Energy Canada CEO Mark Fitzgerald recently told the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade that Canada has an 18-month window to move key projects forward or risk losing investment opportunities. This warning echoes past experience: in 2017, Petronas canceled the Pacific Northwest LNG project just one week after the NDP government took office, despite having invested nearly $1 billion. That decision resulted in the mothballing of the PRGT pipeline and signaled the collapse of other major LNG projects, including Kitimat LNG (Chevron), Aurora LNG (Nexen), WCC LNG (ExxonMobil), and Prince Rupert LNG (Shell). Many investors instead shifted their focus to the United States.

While previous cancellations were partially attributed to macroeconomic factors, these did not deter LNG investment in other jurisdictions. In contrast, Ksi Lisims LNG has recently gained momentum, with significant financial backing from Blackstone Energy Transition Partners, Shell, and TotalEnergies through private placements, off-take agreements, and planned equity stakes. However, investor confidence is fragile and can evaporate if the project becomes mired in regulatory or legal delays.

The PRGT pipeline received its original environmental certificate in 2014 with a five-year term, later renewed once. The Nisga’a Nation and Western LNG must now demonstrate that substantial construction has commenced to maintain that certification. According to Western LNG, work completed includes clearing 47 kilometers of right-of-way on Nisga’a treaty lands, constructing 42 kilometers of road, and building nine bridges. Whether this constitutes a “substantial start” is under review. Groups such as Ecojustice and the Gitanyow First Nation have submitted objections, arguing that it does not meet the threshold.

It is notable that the Gitanyow originally supported PRGT through impact benefits agreements with the province and project agreements with the previous proponent, TC Energy. However, their position shifted after ownership transferred to the Nisga’a Nation and Western LNG. The Gitanyow now argue the project has changed substantially, including a re-routing near the western terminus to accommodate the new Ksi Lisims LNG terminal, which is located further north than the originally planned Pacific Northwest LNG terminal.

Such disputes highlight why both federal and provincial governments have recently begun developing fast-tracking legislation for major infrastructure projects deemed to be in the national interest. These new legislative tools are intended to reduce bureaucratic delays and provide greater regulatory certainty. Ksi Lisims and PRGT meet many of the criteria such legislation is designed to support and would be strong candidates for such treatment should the EAO’s decision result in further delays.

Importantly, Ksi Lisims LNG is not simply a project supported by the Nisga’a Nation—it is being led by them. In addition, all other First Nations along the proposed pipeline route, except the Gitanyow, appear to support the project and are being offered equity participation. This makes Ksi Lisims a powerful example of reconciliation in action.

Furthermore, the project’s floating LNG design significantly reduces its terrestrial footprint and associated environmental impact, particularly on fish habitats. The proponents have also committed to using electricity to power the liquefaction process—when it becomes available—to align with British Columbia’s net-zero emissions targets. These factors support the classification of Ksi Lisims LNG as a clean energy project.

If this project does not meet B.C.’s environmental and social standards, it is difficult to imagine what project could. As Ellis Ross, the newly elected Conservative MP for Skeena–Bulkley Valley, recently stated, “It hits so many of the bullets that politicians have been talking about for so many years.”

If federal and provincial leaders are serious about supporting “nation-building” infrastructure, then Ksi Lisims LNG should be at the top of the list—particularly if the EAO process creates further complications. That said, proponents remain cautiously optimistic. “I don’t think the Nisga’a will give up,” Ross added. “I don’t think it will fail. But if it doesn’t get approved, it will have to incur more cost and more time.”