CANADA MUST REVIVE A “PIPELINE WEST” – Indigenous Ownership and Investment in Energy Projects are Critical to Canada’s Oil Customer Diversification

Interesting events renewed discussions around pipeline projects when Alberta Premier, Daniel Smith made social media comments on Jan 21.2025 that Canada should have more nation-building projects and revive Northern Gateway.

It inspired an immediate comment from the President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip expressing interest in reviving the project. “If we don’t build that kind of infrastructure, Trump will,” Phillip said. “And there won’t be any consideration for the environment, for the rule of law… I think we can do better.”

The next day, Chief Phillip retracted the comment leaving questions about the 180-degree pivot.

Some proponents of Indigenous development, like Calvin Helin, a member of the Tsimshian Nation and Principal at INDsight Advisers, a lawyer who specializes in commercial and Indigenous law and best-selling author, thought the event raised questions about influence.

“Environmental groups have infiltrated some Indigenous organizations,” Helin said in an interview. “They managed to support a government that championed their agendas, particularly agendas involving Alberta – objectives like the coastal pipeline ban and changes to the regulatory approval system. In this era of Trump, all they’ve managed to do is to weaken Canada’s position.”

Helin stressed that in 2025, the energy industry clearly understands the mandate to deal seriously with Indigenous interests, with Indigenous leaders coming forward to support natural resource development while respecting the environment. He suggested that Indigenous inclusion and recognition at the outset is essential for energy projects in 2025 and beyond.

Back in 2018-2019, Helin proposed the Eagle Spirit Corridor a $50 -billion First Nations majority-owned Canadian four pipeline corridor after the Northern Gateway Pipeline was under consideration.

Helin had consulted early with Indigenous groups and proposed a robust natural resource corridor from Bruderheim, AB to Grassy Point, BC. The project involved the support of 32 First Nations from the outset. A variety of shared services were proposed to make the corridor more economical than a pipeline. Helin expected the project would create tens of thousands of jobs over the long term, as well as generate tax revenue and royalties, but it was killed by the federal government’s Bill C-48 tanker ban which stopped companies from using terminals along BC’s north coast to ship oil. The project was ultimately abandoned.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline project for a twin pipeline from Bruderheim, AB, to Kitimat, BC, was also stopped by Bill C-48. Both Eagle Spirit and Northern Gateway chose the north BC coast for transportation to Asian markets for the deeper waters that could accommodate larger-capacity crude oil tankers.

The routes of the Eagle Spirit and Northern Gateway pipelines/corridors are quite similar with Eagle Spirit’s route extending a bit farther north in the final leg, as in the maps below.

Recent threats of tariffs on Canadian imports made by U.S. President Trump have stimulated calls to revive pipeline projects to tidewater, including Northern Gateway.

In direct reference to Northern Gateway, Enbridge CEO Greg Ebel has stated to media that Canada would have to designate major pipeline projects as legally required “in the national interest” before companies will consider investing again.

After the cancellation of Northern Gateway, Dale Swampy,the Indigenous leader who helped to establish the Northern Gateway Aboriginal Equity Partners group (AEP), formed the National Coalition of Chiefs(NCC), a group of pro-development First Nation Chiefs who advocate for the development of oil and gas resources in their communities.

Dale Swampy, President of the NCC says it still makes good sense to get a pipeline devoted to bitumen to the West Coast and that Canada has been “putting all its eggs in one basket” for 50 years and has been selling to just one customer while “everybody else in the oil industry, including the U.S., is getting into the global competitive market.”

The Canadian Energy Centre reports that the oil and gas industry is not going into decline over the next decade and in fact, the demand for oil and gas in emerging and developing economies will remain robust through 2050. In light of the multiple effects of U.S. tariffs, Canadian pipelines to tidewater are seen as urgent. Swampy advocates for policy change and the revival of the Northern Gateway project powered by Indigenous equity investment.

“First, we have got to get rid of the oil tanker ban (C-48),” Swampy said. “We’ve got to get more fluid regulatory processes so that we can get projects built in a reasonable timeline so that it doesn’t cost us billions more, waiting for the regular regulatory process to be complete- like TMX. You’ve also got to get the proponents back to the table. We had 31 of the 40 communities already signed on last time. I believe that we can get them signed on again.”

He continues to work with industry to develop an Indigenous-led bitumen pipeline project to the west coast. “We can get this project built if it’s led by First Nations.”

He says other Indigenous leaders are starting to realize the benefits of cooperating with natural resource development, whether it’s mining or the BC LNG projects that he says are now more widely accepted by First Nations.

Stephen Buffalo, President and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada (IRC) agrees.

“I talk about ripple effects,” Buffalo said. “When Jason Kenney was Premier of Alberta, and the Trans Mountain expansion was a big discussion, he wanted to ensure that First Nations had an opportunity to be some sort of equity owner in projects. With the lack of investment capital, he created the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation with the province as a government backstop.”

Buffalo says the IRC has assembled just over $800 million in government backstop for First Nations to participate in projects which found strong proponents. And those projects are related to natural resource development. He acknowledged that some communities – some of them in BC, don’t see the big picture of what Indigenous Opportunities Corporations can allow them to do.

“You shouldn’t get in the way of others that really need access to healthcare and education and want to develop their communities. I always tell people, our land base, that we were given under the Indian Act, isn’t changing what our populations are. We need housing, and we need the infrastructure, which includes clean water.”

He sees the urgent need for First Nations to get out of poverty and alliances to develop natural resources are key.

“ When we landlock our resources, the U.S. economy seems to get better. Now we’re dependent on the U.S. We have to send our oil to the U.S. at a huge discount. Could or should we have Northern Gateway? Absolutely. Should we have Energy East? Absolutely. We’re importing oil, but we have it at home. Why do we need to import it?”

Buffalo agreed that project discussions and regulations have huge value, but the slowness of the discussion, including pushback from environmental groups that influence discussions is negatively impacting First Nation development. In the case of regulations like Bill C-59, the anti-greenwashing bill, Buffalo says it has silenced many of the members of the Indian Resource Council.

“I’m just looking after our communities,” Buffalo says, “the ones that are never written about, talked about, the ones that don’t have clean water, that don’t have adequate housing, that are lacking education foundations, that are lacking good health care. When government regulatory bodies are making decisions, they’re making decisions for those people that they don’t ever see or ever talk to.”

My discussions with Calvin Helin, Stephen Buffalo and Dale Swampy resulted in a few policy suggestions for 2025 and beyond.

Repeal Bill C- 69 – It not only blocks all pipelines but stops mines, refineries, export plants and other energy infrastructure that First Nations want to invest in. C-69 is unconstitutional- as ruled on October 13.2023 by Canada’s top court.
Cut Taxes in Response to U.S. Tariffs– Tax cuts on investment and energy can neutralize the cost of the tariffs with lower taxes and incentivize investment in Canadian projects. Eliminate the Carbon Tax- Carbon tax elimination has been popular with First Nation leaders who have stated the tax has put us at a strategic disadvantage to other countries.
Repeal Bill C-59, the anti-green-washing bill, which according to Stephen Buffalo has silenced many of the members of the Indian Resource Council and Bill C-48 – the Tanker Ban.
Greenlight LNG Plants and related infrastructure– Canada sells gas exports uniquely to the U.S. There is a strong business case for sales to Asian and European markets. In a recent Canadian Energy Ventures webcast it was revealed that Natural Gas is sold as LNG to Europe at 16X the price Canada sells its gas to the U.S. First Nations are successfully involved in Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG in BC.
Cut Regulatory Delay & Speed Up Approvals – Delay undermines investor confidence that projects can be completed in reasonable timelines.
Reconciliation– Issue clear guidelines on what constitutes meaningful consultation. Industry can treat Indigenous peoples as partners and continue to advance economic reconciliation, including equity partnerships.

Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.

Up Next

Chinese Narco Suspect Caught in Private Meeting with Trudeau, Investigated by DEA, Linked to Panama, Caribbean, Mexico – Police Sources

Don't Miss

Grain farmers warn Canadians that retaliatory tariffs against Trump, US will cause food prices to soar

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Here’s what they don’t tell you about BC’s tanker ban

Daily Caller / 2 hours ago

BREAKING: Globalist Climate Conference Bursts Into Flames

National / 3 hours ago

Psyop-Style Campaign That Delivered Mark Carney’s Win May Extend Into Floor-Crossing Gambits and Shape China–Canada–US–Mexico Relations

Business

Canada is failing dismally at our climate goals. We’re also ruining our economy.

Published on November 20, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Short-term climate pledges simply chase deadlines, not results

The annual meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties, or COP, which is dedicated to implementing international action on climate change, is now underway in Brazil. Like other signatories to the Paris Agreement, Canada is required to provide a progress update on our pledge to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. After decades of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulations aimed at decarbonizing our economy, we’re far from achieving that goal. It’s time for Canada to move past arbitrary short-term goals and deadlines, and instead focus on more effective ways to support climate objectives.

Since signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, the federal government has introduced dozens of measures intended to reduce Canada’s carbon emissions, including more than $150 billion in “green economy” spending, the national carbon tax, the arbitrary cap on emissions imposed exclusively on the oil and gas sector, stronger energy efficiency requirements for buildings and automobiles, electric vehicle mandates, and stricter methane regulations for the oil and gas industry.

Recent estimates show that achieving the federal government’s target will impose significant costs on Canadians, including 164,000 job losses and a reduction in economic output of 6.2 per cent by 2030 (compared to a scenario where we don’t have these measures in place). For Canadian workers, this means losing $6,700 (each, on average) annually by 2030.

Yet even with all these costly measures, Canada will only achieve 57 per cent of its goal for emissions reductions. Several studies have already confirmed that Canada, despite massive green spending and heavy-handed regulations to decarbonize the economy over the past decade, remains off track to meet its 2030 emission reduction target.

And even if Canada somehow met its costly and stringent emission reduction target, the impact on the Earth’s climate would be minimal. Canada accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions, and that share is projected to fall as developing countries consume increasing quantities of energy to support rising living standards. In 2025, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), emerging and developing economies are driving 80 per cent of the growth in global energy demand. Further, IEA projects that fossil fuels will remain foundational to the global energy mix for decades, especially in developing economies. This means that even if Canada were to aggressively pursue short-term emission reductions and all the economic costs it would imposes on Canadians, the overall climate results would be negligible.

Rather than focusing on arbitrary deadline-contingent pledges to reduce Canadian emissions, we should shift our focus to think about how we can lower global GHG emissions. A recent study showed that doubling Canada’s production of liquefied natural gas and exporting to Asia to displace an equivalent amount of coal could lower global GHG emissions by about 1.7 per cent or about 630 million tonnes of GHG emissions. For reference, that’s the equivalent to nearly 90 per cent of Canada’s annual GHG emissions. This type of approach reflects Canada’s existing strength as an energy producer and would address the fastest-growing sources of emissions, namely developing countries.

As the 2030 deadline grows closer, even top climate advocates are starting to emphasize a more pragmatic approach to climate action. In a recent memo, Bill Gates warned that unfounded climate pessimism “is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it’s diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world.” Even within the federal ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the tone is shifting. Despite the 2030 emissions goal having been a hallmark of Canadian climate policy in recent years, in a recent interview, Minister Julie Dabrusin declined to affirm that the 2030 targets remain feasible.

Instead of scrambling to satisfy short-term national emissions limits, governments in Canada should prioritize strategies that will reduce global emissions where they’re growing the fastest.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Carney government’s anti-oil sentiment no longer in doubt

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The Carney government, which on Monday survived a confidence vote in Parliament by the skin of its teeth, recently released a “second tranche of nation-building projects” blessed by the Major Projects Office. To have a chance to survive Canada’s otherwise oppressive regulatory gauntlet, projects must get on this Caesar-like-thumbs-up-thumbs-down list.

The first tranche of major projects released in September included no new oil pipelines but pertained largely to natural gas, nuclear power, mineral production, etc. The absence of proposed oil pipelines was not surprising, as Ottawa’s regulatory barricade on oil production means no sane private company would propose such a project. (The first tranche carries a price tag of $60 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

Now, the second tranche of projects also includes not a whiff of support for oil production, transport and export to non-U.S. markets. Again, not surprising as the prime minister has done nothing to lift the existing regulatory blockade on oil transport out of Alberta.

So, what’s on the latest list?

There’s a “conservation corridor” for British Columbia and Yukon; more LNG projects (both in B.C.); more mineral projects (nickel, graphite, tungsten—all electric vehicle battery constituents); and still more transmission for “clean energy”—again, mostly in B.C. And Nunavut comes out ahead with a new hydro project to power Iqaluit. (The second tranche carries a price tag of $58 billion in government/private-sector spending.)

No doubt many of these projects are worthy endeavours that shouldn’t require the imprimatur of the “Major Projects Office” to see the light of day, and merit development in the old-fashioned Canadian process where private-sector firms propose a project to Canada’s environmental regulators, get necessary and sufficient safety approval, and then build things.

However, new pipeline projects from Alberta would also easily stand on their own feet in that older regulatory regime based on necessary and sufficient safety approval, without the Carney government additionally deciding what is—or is not—important to the government, as opposed to the market, and without provincial governments and First Nations erecting endless barriers.

Regardless of how you value the various projects on the first two tranches, the second tranche makes it crystal clear (if it wasn’t already) that the Carney government will follow (or double down) on the Trudeau government’s plan to constrain oil production in Canada, particularly products derived from Alberta’s oilsands. There’s nary a mention that these products even exist in the government’s latest announcement, despite the fact that the oilsands are the world’s fourth-largest proven reserve of oil. This comes on the heels on the Carney government’s first proposed budget, which also reified the government’s fixation to extinguish greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, continue on the path to “net-zero 2050” and retain Canada’s all-EV new car future beginning in 2036.

It’s clear, at this point, that the Carney government is committed to the policies of the previous Liberal government, has little interest in harnessing the economic value of Canada’s oil holdings nor the potential global influence Canada might exert by exporting its oil products to Asia, Europe and other points abroad. This policy fixation will come at a significant cost to future generations of Canadians.