Prime Minister Mark Carney has narrowly avoided a constitutional misstep that could have handed British Columbia unprecedented power to block a nationally critical oil pipeline, according to political analysts. In the final stages of negotiating a landmark agreement with Alberta, Carney's rhetoric suggested a willingness to let provincial objections stall federal infrastructure, a stance he later walked back.
A Constitutional Close Call
The core of the controversy lies in the division of powers. Under section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, interprovincial pipelines fall squarely under federal jurisdiction. This means that while British Columbia's NDP government, led by Premier David Eby, can voice strong opposition to a new pipeline crossing its territory, it does not possess a legal veto. However, in remarks to the House of Commons just one day before announcing a major memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Alberta, Carney indicated that B.C.'s agreement was necessary.
"We believe the government of British Columbia has to agree," Carney stated, framing this requirement as "co-operative federalism." Critics argue this interpretation would effectively grant every premier a veto over national projects that touch their province, creating a recipe for perpetual gridlock. The proposed pipeline is seen as vital for Canada's economic diversification, aiming to connect Alberta's oil sands to Asian markets and reduce reliance on discounted sales to the United States.
The Alberta-Ottawa Bargain
The backdrop to this political drama is an intensive negotiation process between the federal government and Alberta's United Conservative Party. The resulting MOU outlines a significant bargain: Alberta conceded to a higher industrial carbon tax and committed billions to carbon capture technology in exchange for the federal government's political backing to advance a new pipeline to the West Coast.
This deal was meant to clear a major political hurdle, addressing both economic and environmental concerns. Other elements included exemptions for Alberta from certain federal regulations. The entire agreement was poised to signal a new era of federal-provincial collaboration on nation-building projects—until Carney's comments introduced a new potential obstacle.
Leadership and the Power to Build
The incident has sparked debate about Carney's leadership style and his ability to deliver on large-scale promises. Sold to voters as a leader who could accomplish "big things," his momentary flirtation with empowering provincial vetoes raised alarms. As noted by B.C. political journalist Rob Shaw, if Carney's vision requires unanimous approval from squabbling premiers and First Nations on every major project, Canada's economic future could be hamstrung.
Thankfully, the final text of the MOU required Alberta to collaborate with B.C., rather than granting B.C. an outright veto. This subtle but crucial distinction preserved federal authority. The episode serves as a stark warning: For a country struggling to build major infrastructure, the path of least resistance is often the path to nowhere. Public opinion data adds complexity, with an Angus Reid poll showing 56% of British Columbians actually support a new oil pipeline, contrasting with Premier Eby's steadfast opposition.
As Prime Minister, Carney holds the constitutional tools to advance projects of national significance. The test will be whether he uses them to lead, or allows them to be diluted by a version of federalism that prioritizes agreement over action. The nation's economic diversification may depend on his choice.
